How Johnson County Went Democratic For The 14th Time In A Row Since LBJ

(Not Quite The Same Way It Did Last Time)

Donald Trump's Dubuque County win in November leaves Johnson County as the Iowa county with the longest continuous Democratic presidential winning streak, back to LBJ vs. Goldwater in 1964. When I researched that years ago, I wasn't surprised by Ike, but I was surprised that despite a strong Irish Catholic Democrat heritage, Johnson County picked Nixon over JFK in the last GOP win.

I thought people were tired of November election numbers, until Pat Rynard at Iowa Starting Line did an epic, precinct-level post,  "How Dubuque County Went Republican For The 1st Time Since Eisenhower," last week. After that I threatened to do the same for Johnson County, and no one told me not to. So I'm blatantly stealing Pat's idea and format and replacing Dubuque's numbers with Iowa City's.

Dubuque Co.	2016	2016%	2012	2012%	Vote Diff	% Diff
Trump/Romney	23,460	47.20%	21,280	41.80%	2,180	5.40%
Clinton/Obama	22,850	46.00%	28,768	56.50%	-5,918	-10.60%
Stein	379	0.80%	111	0.20%	268	0.50%
Johnson	2,013	4.00%	438	0.90%	1,575	3.20%
Other	1,019	2.00%	297	0.60%	722	1.50%
Total	49,721		50,894		-1,173
Johnson Co.	2016	2016%	2012	2012%	Vote Diff	% Diff
Trump/Romney	21044	27.35%	23698	31.19%	-2,654	-3.84%
Clinton/Obama	50200	65.25%	50666	66.69%	-466	-1.44%
Stein	878	1.14%	333	0.44%	545	0.70%
Johnson	2758	3.58%	846	1.11%	1,912	2.47%
Other	2060	2.68%	434	0.57%	1,626	2.11%
Total	77,476		76,199		1,277

At first, I thought this would be a lot of number crunching for not much insight. I had dismissed the local results as Johnson County Normal - a slight drop for Hillary, a bigger drop for Donald, and a slightly larger Democratic margin than Obama won over Romney.

But the closer I looked, the more I saw national and state level patterns mirrored close to home. The results seem to not be so much More Of The Same as they are multiple trends in different directions that came very close to balancing out.

Pat split Dubuque city into four chunks and looked at the rest of the county as a whole. I broke slightly bigger Iowa City into five. I also broke out Coralville, North Liberty, and I split the rural part of the county into two. (Polling places listed may vary as we moved some precincts between 2012 and 2016).

Let's start by looking at the two parts of Iowa City that people think of when they think "Iowa City."

Campus and Downtown

Precincts 3 and 5 are dorm-dominated; 3 also has a chunk of neighborhood and an apartment chunk of mostly med students. 19 is almost entirely student apartments. 11 and 20 are mainly student apartments though 11 has a chunk of working class neighborhood (where I live) and 20 has a couple senior buildings. Those are the five traditional "student" precincts. 13 has trended student since the construction of the Hawks Ridge apartment complex - though in a retrospective edit, I see that I should have grouped it somewhere else.

2016	Trump		Clinton		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
IC03 Petersen	551	33.39%	967	58.61%	19	1.15%	87	5.27%	26	1.58%	1,657
IC05 UI Library	455	24.70%	1,252	67.97%	16	0.87%	86	4.67%	33	1.79%	1,847
IC11 UI Library	409	25.79%	1,041	65.64%	26	1.64%	79	4.98%	31	1.95%	1,588
IC13 Hawks Ridge	238	17.80%	977	73.07%	27	2.02%	52	3.89%	43	3.22%	1,349
IC19 Rec Center	334	23.16%	959	66.50%	26	1.80%	89	6.17%	34	2.36%	1,442
IC20 Senior Center	343	20.64%	1,183	71.18%	29	1.74%	71	4.27%	36	2.17%	1,666
Campus subtotal	2,330	24.40%	6,379	66.80%	143	1.50%	464	4.86%	203	2.13%	9,549
2012	Romney		Obama		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
IC03 Quad	565	35.01%	1,000	61.96%	5	0.31%	29	1.80%	15	0.93%	1,614
IC05 UI Library	539	32.28%	1,075	64.37%	4	0.24%	39	2.34%	13	0.78%	1,672
IC11 Courthouse	591	33.93%	1,090	62.57%	10	0.57%	39	2.24%	12	0.69%	1,747
IC13 City Transit	296	20.86%	1,079	76.04%	8	0.56%	30	2.11%	6	0.42%	1,423
IC19 Rec Center	429	28.81%	994	66.76%	11	0.74%	36	2.42%	19	1.28%	1,490
IC20 Senior Center	504	28.97%	1,179	67.76%	17	0.98%	33	1.90%	7	0.40%	1,741
Campus subtotal	2,924	30.18%	6,417	66.24%	55	0.57%	206	2.13%	72	0.74%	9,687
2016 vs 2012 votes	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Total Votes
IC03 Petersen	-14		-33		14		58		11		43
IC05 UI Library	-84		177		12		47		20		175
IC11 UI Library	-182		-49		16		40		19		-159
IC13 Hawks Ridge	-58		-102		19		22		37		-74
IC19 Rec Center	-95		-35		15		53		15		-48
IC20 Senior Center	-161		4		12		38		29		-75
Campus subtotal	-594		-38		88		258		131		-138
2016 vs 2012 %	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Net R Swing
IC03 Petersen	-1.61%		-3.35%		0.84%		3.48%		0.65%		1.74%
IC05 UI Library	-7.57%		3.60%		0.63%		2.33%		1.01%		-11.17%
IC11 UI Library	-8.14%		3.07%		1.07%		2.74%		1.27%		-11.20%
IC13 Hawks Ridge	-3.06%		-2.97%		1.46%		1.78%		2.79%		-0.09%
IC19 Rec Center	-5.65%		-0.25%		1.06%		3.75%		1.08%		-5.40%
IC20 Senior Center	-8.33%		3.42%		0.77%		2.38%		1.76%		-11.75%
Campus subtotal	-5.78%		0.56%		0.93%		2.73%		1.38%		-6.34%

These were heavy Bernie precincts at caucus time, and note a slight turnout drop in the off-campus precincts and a more than doubling of the third party vote share. (Over 1 percent of the Johnson County vote, more than 900 people, was on the write-in line, up from just 60 votes as recently as 2004.) But the drop was only slight, and the tend was toward the Democrats - or, more accurately, away from Trump.

Interestingly, precinct 3 had one of the lowest Hillary percentages in the city, and actually trended slightly to Trump, but the very similar precinct 5 performed more like 2012 and shifted 11 points toward the Democrats. I have no explanation as to why the two dorm precincts behaved so differently; perhaps a younger reader who knows more about residence life can help.

Precinct 13 has the highest Democratic score here, and also has the highest non-student percentage. As I so often note, it's not undergrads that make Iowa City, or any other college town, a liberal island of blue. Undergrads still tend to follow parental political cues. No, it's grad students and faculty and staff who make college towns liberal, and they live in...

The People's Republic

These three precincts are historically the most Democratic in the county. It barely even makes sense to make a walking list, because you'll get a Democrat at every door.

In 2000, Ralph Nader edged George W. Bush for second place in north side precinct 21, and 21 usually fights with Longfellow neighborhood 18 for bragging rights. Precinct 17, which voted at City High till this year (handicapped accessibility requirements made it impossible to stay) usually has a slightly lower percentage but has the biggest Democratic vote totals.

These areas were also strong for Sanders at caucus time, but not as overwhelmingly as the youth-dominated student precincts. The fundamental divide between Sanders and Clinton was pragmatism vs. realism...

2016	Trump		Clinton		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
IC17 Our Redeemer	260	13.32%	1,568	80.33%	40	2.05%	36	1.84%	48	2.46%	1,963
IC18 Longfellow	191	10.71%	1,471	82.46%	36	2.02%	42	2.35%	44	2.47%	1,791
IC21 Horace Mann	226	13.78%	1,286	78.41%	40	2.44%	52	3.17%	36	2.20%	1,646
Lefty subtotal	677	12.54%	4,325	80.09%	116	2.15%	130	2.41%	128	2.37%	5,400
2012	Romney		Obama		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
IC17 City High	363	18.34%	1,541	77.87%	30	1.52%	34	1.72%	11	0.56%	1,983
IC18 Longfellow	260	13.54%	1,595	83.07%	17	0.89%	35	1.82%	13	0.68%	1,922
IC21 Horace Mann	335	19.15%	1,340	76.62%	21	1.20%	38	2.17%	15	0.86%	1,752
Lefty subtotal	958	16.93%	4,476	79.12%	68	1.20%	107	1.89%	39	0.69%	5,657
2016 vs 2012 votes	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Total Votes
IC17 Our Redeemer	-103		27		10		2		37		-20
IC18 Longfellow	-69		-124		19		7		31		-131
IC21 Horace Mann	-109		-54		19		14		21		-106
Lefty subtotal	-281		-151		48		23		89		-257
2016 vs 2012 %	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Net R Swing
IC17 Our Redeemer	-5.02%		2.46%		0.53%		0.13%		1.90%		-7.48%
IC18 Longfellow	-2.84%		-0.62%		1.13%		0.53%		1.79%		-2.22%
IC21 Horace Mann	-5.37%		1.80%		1.24%		1.00%		1.34%		-7.17%
Lefty subtotal	-4.40%		0.97%		0.95%		0.52%		1.68%		-5.37%

...and we see that gain in the general where the trend to Johnson and Stein was lower than in the student neighborhoods. However, the trend to Other was just as strong as with the students, and turnout was also down a little more here.

In precincts 17 and 21, we see both trends away from Trump and toward Hillary. Precinct 18 didn't trend away from Trump as much, but that may be because they were already close to rock bottom for Romney. Despite a slight drop, 18 had the highest Hillary percentage in the county. These are about the biggest Democratic percentages you'll see anywhere in America outside of majority-minority parts of big cities.

The South/Southeast side

Iowa City's southeast side is an odd mix: trailer courts and big non-student working class apartments, interlaced with empty nesters who are not happy about Those People From Chicago. Iowa City, especially this area, has seen a noticeable black in-migration in the past 15 to 20 years, and also has a growing Hispanic population centered in these precincts. Included for demographic sake are two trailer-dominated "rural" precincts, Scott and West Lucas townships.

2016	Trump		Clinton		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
IC10 Trueblood	322	24.30%	918	69.28%	14	1.06%	34	2.57%	37	2.79%	1,338
IC12 Grant Wood	281	18.34%	1,131	73.83%	21	1.37%	56	3.66%	43	2.81%	1,542
IC14 Mark Twain	204	14.32%	1,108	77.75%	27	1.89%	43	3.02%	43	3.02%	1,431
IC15 Tate	174	18.26%	685	71.88%	29	3.04%	38	3.99%	27	2.83%	963
SC Scott	306	32.90%	569	61.18%	11	1.18%	28	3.01%	16	1.72%	937
WL West Lucas	194	30.22%	405	63.08%	15	2.34%	11	1.71%	17	2.65%	646
south subtotal	1,481	21.60%	4,816	70.23%	117	1.71%	210	3.06%	183	2.67%	6,857
2012	Romney		Obama		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
IC10 City Parks	312	24.66%	927	73.28%	5	0.40%	16	1.26%	5	0.40%	1,273
IC12 Grant Wood	314	20.52%	1,184	77.39%	6	0.39%	12	0.78%	14	0.92%	1,538
IC14 Mark Twain	259	17.13%	1,219	80.62%	13	0.86%	9	0.60%	12	0.79%	1,523
IC15 Tate	247	20.36%	943	77.74%	8	0.66%	10	0.82%	5	0.41%	1,219
SC Scott	352	35.20%	630	63.00%	6	0.60%	7	0.70%	5	0.50%	1,007
WL West Lucas	203	28.12%	511	70.78%	3	0.42%	2	0.28%	3	0.42%	730
south subtotal	1,687	23.14%	5,414	74.27%	41	0.56%	56	0.77%	44	0.60%	7,290
2016 vs 2012 votes	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Total Votes
IC10 Trueblood	10		-9		9		18		32		65
IC12 Grant Wood	-33		-53		15		44		29		4
IC14 Mark Twain	-55		-111		14		34		31		-92
IC15 Tate	-73		-258		21		28		22		-256
SC Scott	-46		-61		5		21		11		-70
WL West Lucas	-9		-106		12		9		14		-84
south subtotal	-206		-598		76		154		139		-433
2016 vs 2012 %	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Net R Swing
IC10 Trueblood	-0.36%		-4.00%		0.66%		1.30%		2.40%		3.64%
IC12 Grant Wood	-2.18%		-3.56%		0.98%		2.87%		1.89%		1.38%
IC14 Mark Twain	-2.81%		-2.87%		1.03%		2.42%		2.22%		0.05%
IC15 Tate	-2.10%		-5.86%		2.38%		3.16%		2.42%		3.76%
SC Scott	-2.30%		-1.82%		0.58%		2.31%		1.22%		-0.48%
WL West Lucas	2.10%		-7.69%		1.92%		1.44%		2.23%		9.79%
south subtotal	-1.54%		-4.03%		1.14%		2.29%		2.07%		2.49%

Precinct 10 doesn't quite fit here; new owner-occupied homes make this the one precinct in the area with a turnout increase. And you can see that Scott and West Lucas still have some rural voters. But 14 and to a lesser extent precinct 12 and (because of high third party totals including Stein's top score at 3% ) precinct 15 rival even the lefty heartland with their percentages;  would have been nice to have gotten more voters out of here.

Most of the turnout drop here is in one precinct, 15. The "redevelopment" of the Rose Oaks apartments (formerly and locally known as Lakeside) uprooted a lot of people. There may also have been a dip in black turnout without Barack Obama on the ballot, but racial voting data isn't available in Iowa.

East Side

Now we're starting to get into "townie" Iowa City. There are apartments here and there but most of these voters are homeowners in long-established neighborhoods. Precinct 6 has large senior complexes. Precinct 22 has some new homes in the Peninsula neighborhood and the only population of students here, at the Mayflower dorm. (I tried really hard to fix that in reprecincting and couldn't.) Precinct 24 is dominated by the relatively new and high income Windsor Ridge development.

These voters are not usually left wing in local elections, but are solidly Democratic at the top of the ticket.

2016	Trump		Clinton		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
IC01 Lemme	439	22.15%	1,442	72.75%	10	0.50%	34	1.72%	57	2.88%	1,997
IC06 Mercer	364	19.65%	1,358	73.33%	23	1.24%	52	2.81%	55	2.97%	1,869
IC16 Mercer	247	14.71%	1,321	78.68%	27	1.61%	39	2.32%	45	2.68%	1,695
IC22 Shimek	319	21.92%	1,042	71.62%	15	1.03%	42	2.89%	37	2.54%	1,466
IC23 ICCSD	372	18.60%	1,488	74.40%	27	1.35%	53	2.65%	60	3.00%	2,015
IC24 St. Patrick	547	26.26%	1,388	66.63%	18	0.86%	68	3.26%	62	2.98%	2,113
east subtotal	2,288	20.51%	8,039	72.07%	120	1.08%	288	2.58%	316	2.83%	11,155
2012	Romney		Obama		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
IC01 Lemme	535	27.88%	1,361	70.92%	2	0.10%	15	0.78%	6	0.31%	1,924
IC06 Mercer	513	26.76%	1,367	71.31%	12	0.63%	15	0.78%	10	0.52%	1,924
IC16 Lucas	336	19.48%	1,353	78.43%	9	0.52%	18	1.04%	9	0.52%	1,731
IC22 Shimek	349	23.97%	1,079	74.11%	6	0.41%	15	1.03%	7	0.48%	1,458
IC23 Regina	525	25.61%	1,486	72.49%	14	0.68%	12	0.59%	13	0.63%	2,054
IC24 St. Patrick	696	38.16%	1,111	60.91%	3	0.16%	10	0.55%	4	0.22%	1,828
east subtotal	2,954	27.05%	7,757	71.04%	46	0.42%	85	0.78%	49	0.45%	10,919
2016 vs 2012 votes	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Total Votes
IC01 Lemme	-96		81		8		19		51		73
IC06 Mercer	-149		-9		11		37		45		-55
IC16 Mercer	-89		-32		18		21		36		-36
IC22 Shimek	-30		-37		9		27		30		8
IC23 ICCSD	-153		2		13		41		47		-39
IC24 St. Patrick	-149		277		15		58		58		285
east subtotal	-666		282		74		203		267		236
2016 vs 2012 %	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Net R Swing
IC01 Lemme	-5.73%		1.83%		0.40%		0.93%		2.56%		-7.56%
IC06 Mercer	-7.11%		2.02%		0.62%		2.03%		2.45%		-9.12%
IC16 Mercer	-4.77%		0.24%		1.09%		1.28%		2.16%		-5.01%
IC22 Shimek	-2.05%		-2.49%		0.62%		1.86%		2.06%		0.45%
IC23 ICCSD	-7.01%		1.91%		0.67%		2.06%		2.37%		-8.92%
IC24 St. Patrick	-11.90%		5.72%		0.70%		2.72%		2.76%		-17.62%
east subtotal	-6.54%		1.03%		0.65%		1.80%		2.38%		-7.57%

And here we see outright revulsion at Trump, with a 17 point Democratic swing in precinct 24 and 9 point swings in 6 and 23. Most of this seems to be against Trump - note the giant spikes in the Johnson and Other vote, and I'm thinking that's McMullin or that's non-Trump GOP write-ins. Except in precinct 24, where Hillary ran almost 6 points ahead of Obama. The growth also means 24 accounted for most of the east side's turnout increase. (There's also one new subdivision in precinct 1.)

Granted, the "suburban" parts of Iowa City are a lot more Democratic that, say, Dallas County. But this is a Never Trump trend we saw nationally in similar places and which I expected, before Election Night, would be the big story of 2016.

West Side

There's a lot of similarity to the east side here, with Kennedy Parkway in precinct 7 taking the place of Windsor Ridge and Oaknoll in precinct 2 more than taking the place of the senior complexes in precinct 6. Precinct 4 is mostly the doctor/professor dominated very old neighborhood, Manville Heights; the enclaved speed trap University Heights has a similar feel.

But there's a few wild cards here. Precinct 4 also has a chunk of Frat Row, and there's a low income area split between 7 and 9 that includes a large and politically active Sudanese community. These are the voters I saw bringing their passports with them to vote as if to assert "I AM an American."

2016	Trump		Clinton		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
IC02 Horn	349	20.70%	1,208	71.65%	23	1.36%	55	3.26%	51	3.02%	1,707
IC04 Art	273	16.28%	1,309	78.06%	15	0.89%	59	3.52%	21	1.25%	1,688
IC07 West High	294	20.99%	1,016	72.52%	9	0.64%	48	3.43%	34	2.43%	1,413
IC08 Weber	437	24.69%	1,219	68.87%	11	0.62%	49	2.77%	54	3.05%	1,782
IC09 Hall of Fame	306	18.75%	1,188	72.79%	25	1.53%	52	3.19%	61	3.74%	1,642
UH University Heights	142	19.86%	527	73.71%	4	0.56%	23	3.22%	19	2.66%	720
West Subtotal	1,801	20.12%	6,467	72.24%	87	0.97%	286	3.19%	240	2.68%	8,952
2012	Romney		Obama		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
IC02 Horn	531	29.57%	1,228	68.37%	6	0.33%	18	1.00%	13	0.72%	1,800
IC04 Lincoln	345	23.03%	1,130	75.43%	7	0.47%	9	0.60%	7	0.47%	1,499
IC07 West High	347	27.92%	872	70.15%	6	0.48%	10	0.80%	8	0.64%	1,248
IC08 Weber School	612	35.79%	1,085	63.45%	2	0.12%	7	0.41%	4	0.23%	1,715
IC09 Hall of Fame	430	25.10%	1,246	72.74%	7	0.41%	21	1.23%	9	0.53%	1,720
UH University Heights	233	30.14%	531	68.69%	2	0.26%	4	0.52%	3	0.39%	774
West Subtotal	2,498	28.53%	6,092	69.58%	30	0.34%	69	0.79%	44	0.50%	8,756
2016 vs 2012 votes	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Total Votes
IC02 Horn	-182		-20		17		37		38		-93
IC04 Art	-72		179		8		50		14		189
IC07 West High	-53		144		3		38		26		165
IC08 Weber	-175		134		9		42		50		67
IC09 Hall of Fame	-124		-58		18		31		52		-78
UH University Heights	-91		-4		2		19		16		-54
West Subtotal	-697		375		57		217		196		196
2016 vs 2012 %	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Net R Swing
IC02 Horn	-8.87%		3.27%		1.03%		2.26%		2.30%		-12.14%
IC04 Art	-6.75%		2.62%		0.43%		2.92%		0.78%		-9.37%
IC07 West High	-6.93%		2.37%		0.16%		2.62%		1.78%		-9.30%
IC08 Weber	-11.10%		5.42%		0.50%		2.36%		2.82%		-16.52%
IC09 Hall of Fame	-6.35%		0.06%		1.12%		1.96%		3.21%		-6.41%
UH University Heights	-10.28%		5.01%		0.30%		2.70%		2.27%		-15.30%
West Subtotal	-8.41%		2.67%		0.63%		2.41%		2.18%		-11.08%

The west side shifted even more Democratic than the east - 11 points overall including a whopping 16.5% in precinct 8. The difference seems to be more of a trend toward Hillary, on top of the anti-Trump shift. But again, big spikes for Johnson, Other, and also Stein here.

Big surprise here: the turnout drop in precinct 2, despite heavy turnout civically engaged Oaknoll (site of the one successful satellite caucus in the state) opening a large new wing since 2012. I can't account for that; most of the student apartments on West Benton are in precinct 13, not 2. (Having already cut the turf, I see now that precinct 13 fits better here than it did in the student precincts.)

Coralville

Demographically there's really two Coralvilles. South Coralville (precinct 1, 4, and 5) is mostly older homes and apartments. North Coralville (precincts 2, 6, 7 and the demographically similar Penn Township) has bigger and newer homes and more money. Precinct 3 doesn't quite fit either; it's dominated by the Coral Court apartment complex and the Western Hills trailer court (where registration has been in decline).

2016	Trump		Clinton		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
CV01 Library	304	19.86%	1,095	71.52%	22	1.44%	65	4.25%	45	2.92%	1,541
CV02 Brown Deer	459	29.18%	990	62.94%	13	0.83%	53	3.37%	58	3.66%	1,586
CV03 Hygienic Lab	272	28.39%	615	64.20%	8	0.84%	33	3.44%	30	3.11%	966
CV04 City Hall	208	18.31%	838	73.77%	14	1.23%	39	3.43%	37	3.23%	1,145
CV05 NW Jr High	262	20.58%	926	72.74%	9	0.71%	41	3.22%	35	2.73%	1,280
CV06 Wickham	576	30.72%	1,181	62.99%	9	0.48%	66	3.52%	43	2.28%	1,887
CV07 North Ridge	371	23.74%	1,072	68.59%	18	1.15%	45	2.88%	57	3.65%	1,582
PN Penn Twp	596	30.94%	1,210	62.82%	12	0.62%	67	3.48%	41	2.13%	1,948
Coralville subtotal	3,048	25.54%	7,927	66.42%	105	0.88%	409	3.43%	346	2.90%	11,935
2012	Romney		Obama		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
CV01 Central	344	24.01%	1,031	71.95%	10	0.70%	36	2.51%	12	0.84%	1,442
CV02 Grant Wood AEA	587	36.69%	972	60.75%	8	0.50%	21	1.31%	12	0.75%	1,602
CV03 Hygienic Lab	287	31.82%	604	66.96%	0	0.00%	6	0.67%	5	0.55%	902
CV04 Rec Center	265	20.35%	996	76.50%	8	0.61%	16	1.23%	17	1.31%	1,309
CV05 NW Jr High	344	25.29%	977	71.84%	10	0.74%	21	1.54%	8	0.59%	1,363
CV06 Wickham	752	43.62%	957	55.51%	4	0.23%	7	0.41%	4	0.23%	1,724
CV07 Northridge	459	28.72%	1,102	68.96%	7	0.44%	21	1.31%	9	0.56%	1,600
PN Penn Twp	715	36.46%	1,223	62.37%	5	0.25%	13	0.66%	5	0.25%	1,965
Coralville subtotal	3,753	31.52%	7,862	66.03%	52	0.44%	141	1.18%	72	0.60%	11,907
2016 vs 2012 votes	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Total Votes
CV01 Library	-40		64		12		29		33		99
CV02 Brown Deer	-128		18		5		32		46		-16
CV03 Hygienic Lab	-15		11		8		27		25		64
CV04 City Hall	-57		-158		6		23		20		-164
CV05 NW Jr High	-82		-51		-1		20		27		-83
CV06 Wickham	-176		224		5		59		39		163
CV07 North Ridge	-88		-30		11		24		48		-18
PN Penn Twp	-119		-13		7		54		36		-17
Coralville subtotal	-705		65		53		268		274		28
2016 vs 2012 %	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Net R Swing
CV01 Library	-4.15%		-0.43%		0.74%		1.73%		2.10%		-3.72%
CV02 Brown Deer	-7.51%		2.19%		0.33%		2.06%		2.94%		-9.69%
CV03 Hygienic Lab	-3.43%		-2.77%		0.84%		2.78%		2.58%		-0.66%
CV04 City Hall	-2.04%		-2.73%		0.62%		2.20%		1.95%		0.69%
CV05 NW Jr High	-4.71%		0.90%		-0.03%		1.68%		2.16%		-5.62%
CV06 Wickham	-12.90%		7.48%		0.25%		3.11%		2.06%		-20.38%
CV07 North Ridge	-4.99%		-0.38%		0.71%		1.56%		3.08%		-4.61%
PN Penn Twp	-5.52%		0.46%		0.37%		2.82%		1.87%		-5.97%
Coralville subtotal	-5.98%		0.39%		0.44%		2.24%		2.29%		-6.37%

We get a very mixed set of data from Coralville. Turnout was almost identical but it was a matter of counter-trends. Overall Hillary's percentage narrowly tops Obama's while Trump drops six points.

I'd say that shift was toward the third parties... but it isn't, because it isn't consistent across precincts. The big story here is precinct 6 with a 7.5% Hillary gain that more than accounts for her area-wide gain, and a massive 20 point shift to the Democrats.

North Liberty and Tiffin

This is some of the fastest growing turf in the state and it was the scene of the one significantly contested local race, in open House District 77 where North Liberty mayor Amy Nielsen beat a strong for Johnson County GOP candidate, former Tiffin mayor Royce Phillips.

North Liberty isn't any more of a monolith than Coralville is, yet we get an even more precise example of trends counter-balancing.

2016	Trump		Clinton		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
CC Tiffin	617	37.51%	898	54.59%	20	1.22%	76	4.62%	34	2.07%	1,654
NL01 Rec Center	447	30.79%	873	60.12%	11	0.76%	62	4.27%	59	4.06%	1,458
NL02 Garner	446	31.45%	847	59.73%	7	0.49%	72	5.08%	46	3.24%	1,430
NL03 South Slope	618	32.79%	1,056	56.02%	17	0.90%	122	6.47%	72	3.82%	1,896
NL04 North Central	352	27.80%	812	64.14%	14	1.11%	50	3.95%	38	3.00%	1,279
NL05 Rec Center	337	27.85%	762	62.98%	13	1.07%	59	4.88%	39	3.22%	1,216
NL06-MD UICCU	867	37.00%	1,258	53.69%	22	0.94%	128	5.46%	68	2.90%	2,351
NL/Tiffin subtotal	3,684	32.65%	6,506	57.66%	104	0.92%	569	5.04%	356	3.15%	11,284
2012	Romney		Obama		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
CC Tiffin	477	36.47%	804	61.47%	3	0.23%	17	1.30%	7	0.54%	1,313
NL01 NL Comm Center	502	37.46%	821	61.27%	0	0.00%	11	0.82%	6	0.45%	1,341
NL02 Garner	497	36.54%	849	62.43%	2	0.15%	7	0.51%	5	0.37%	1,366
NL03 South Slope	603	39.62%	890	58.48%	5	0.33%	20	1.31%	4	0.26%	1,524
NL04 North Central	359	27.94%	904	70.35%	1	0.08%	8	0.62%	13	1.01%	1,292
NL05 NL Comm Center	459	34.85%	837	63.55%	1	0.08%	12	0.91%	8	0.61%	1,320
NL06-MD North Bend	787	40.73%	1,102	57.04%	5	0.26%	28	1.45%	10	0.52%	1,934
NL/Tiffin subtotal	3,684	36.51%	6,207	61.52%	17	0.17%	103	1.02%	53	0.53%	10,090
2016 vs 2012 votes	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Total Votes
CC Tiffin	140		94		17		59		27		341
NL01 Rec Center	-55		52		11		51		53		117
NL02 Garner	-51		-2		5		65		41		64
NL03 South Slope	15		166		12		102		68		372
NL04 North Central	-7		-92		13		42		25		-13
NL05 Rec Center	-122		-75		12		47		31		-104
NL06-MD UICCU	80		156		17		100		58		417
NL/Tiffin subtotal	0		299		87		466		303		1,194
2016 vs 2012 %	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Net R Swing
CC Tiffin	1.04%		-6.88%		0.99%		3.32%		1.53%		7.92%
NL01 Rec Center	-6.68%		-1.14%		0.76%		3.45%		3.62%		-5.53%
NL02 Garner	-5.09%		-2.69%		0.35%		4.56%		2.88%		-2.40%
NL03 South Slope	-6.83%		-2.45%		0.57%		5.16%		3.56%		-4.38%
NL04 North Central	-0.13%		-6.21%		1.03%		3.33%		1.99%		6.08%
NL05 Rec Center	-7.00%		-0.58%		1.00%		3.96%		2.62%		-6.42%
NL06-MD UICCU	-3.73%		-3.35%		0.68%		4.01%		2.38%		-0.38%
NL/Tiffin subtotal	-3.86%		-3.86%		0.75%		4.02%		2.63%		0.00%

I thought I made a spreadsheet error so I checked again and yes, Trump and Clinton's losses compared to Romney and Obama exactly balanced out in North Liberty and Tiffin for zero net percentage change. With both major party candidates losing nearly four points, that of course means a massive jump in third party votes. That's not entirely a shock; high growth areas tend to be less politically established and less rooted to tradition. North Liberty 3 topped 11 percent 3rd party. (Tangent: the four precincts with the highest non-two party vote were all demographically different: high income high growth North Liberty 3, student precinct Iowa City 19, southeast side Iowa City 15, and small town Hills.)

Tiffin, which is a couple decades closer to its rural roots than North Liberty, trended away from Clinton. So did trailer court dominated North Liberty 4.  That was counter-balanced by anti-Trump trends in precincts 1 and 5 which are slightly older development, though nothing's very old out here. Precinct 5 actually saw a drop in total voters. That area is built out, perhaps indicating that the overall North Liberty turnout increase was caused more by growth than by increased interest.

The Greater Solon Metropolitan Area

Rural Johnson County doesn't divide neatly so I split it into two. 

Even the most casual local observers have seen a GOP trend in northeast Johnson County, and the sage of Solon Paul Deaton has written about it extensively. Most of this turf is in Republican Bobby Kaufmann's legislative district; he's worked this area hard and went without opposition this cycle.

Demographically most of this is high growth turf including Swisher and Shueyville (in Nielsen's district, not Kaufmann's) which are oriented as much toward Cedar Rapids as Iowa City. Outside the town there are a lot of big houses with couples commuting in opposite directions.

2016	Trump		Clinton		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
BG Big Grove	575	48.94%	529	45.02%	3	0.26%	42	3.57%	26	2.21%	1,187
CE Cedar	191	53.35%	144	40.22%	1	0.28%	10	2.79%	12	3.35%	358
GR Graham	122	37.65%	185	57.10%	3	0.93%	8	2.47%	6	1.85%	325
JE Jefferson E.-Shueyville	813	51.10%	676	42.49%	10	0.63%	59	3.71%	33	2.07%	1,594
JW Jefferson W.-Swisher	745	51.13%	639	43.86%	6	0.41%	31	2.13%	36	2.47%	1,464
NP Newport	580	36.64%	898	56.73%	14	0.88%	41	2.59%	50	3.16%	1,595
SO Solon city	612	43.87%	688	49.32%	11	0.79%	51	3.66%	33	2.37%	1,410
Metro Solon subtotal	3,638	45.86%	3,759	47.38%	48	0.61%	242	3.05%	196	2.47%	7,933
2012	Romney		Obama		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
BG Big Grove	551	49.33%	555	49.69%	1	0.09%	7	0.63%	3	0.27%	1,123
CE Cedar	151	42.78%	198	56.09%	0	0.00%	2	0.57%	2	0.57%	353
GR Graham	107	35.43%	187	61.92%	2	0.66%	2	0.66%	4	1.32%	302
JE Jefferson E.-Shueyville	841	53.81%	699	44.72%	4	0.26%	10	0.64%	9	0.58%	1,568
JW Jefferson W.-Swisher	702	48.58%	735	50.87%	0	0.00%	6	0.42%	2	0.14%	1,451
NP Newport	646	40.38%	936	58.50%	1	0.06%	10	0.63%	7	0.44%	1,603
SO Solon city	447	37.91%	715	60.64%	4	0.34%	7	0.59%	6	0.51%	1,184
Metro Solon subtotal	3,445	45.42%	4,025	53.07%	12	0.16%	44	0.58%	33	0.44%	7,584
2016 vs 2012 votes	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Total Votes
BG Big Grove	24		-26		2		35		23		64
CE Cedar	40		-54		1		8		10		5
GR Graham	15		-2		1		6		2		23
JE Jefferson E.-Shueyville	-28		-23		6		49		24		26
JW Jefferson W.-Swisher	43		-96		6		25		34		13
NP Newport	-66		-38		13		31		43		-8
SO Solon city	165		-27		7		44		27		226
Metro Solon subtotal	193		-266		36		198		163		349
2016 vs 2012 %	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Net R Swing
BG Big Grove	-0.39%		-4.67%		0.17%		2.95%		1.94%		4.27%
CE Cedar	10.58%		-15.87%		0.28%		2.23%		2.79%		26.44%
GR Graham	2.22%		-4.82%		0.26%		1.81%		0.53%		7.05%
JE Jefferson E.-Shueyville	-2.71%		-2.23%		0.37%		3.07%		1.50%		-0.47%
JW Jefferson W.-Swisher	2.55%		-7.01%		0.41%		1.71%		2.33%		9.56%
NP Newport	-3.74%		-1.77%		0.82%		1.97%		2.72%		-1.96%
SO Solon city	5.96%		-11.33%		0.45%		3.06%		1.86%		17.28%
Metro Solon subtotal	0.43%		-5.69%		0.45%		2.47%		2.04%		6.12%

Here for the first time we see actual Trump wins. Romney carried only Shueyville; Trump adds Swisher, Big Grove (the rural area immediately surrounding Solon city) and rural Cedar Township (the greater metropolitan Sutliff area), and holds Hillary under 50% in Solon.

Demographic question I can't figure out: Cedar used to vote as Democratic as the very similar Graham Township (greater metropolitan Morse). Graham has stayed blue while Cedar has turned red in a big way with a 26 point shift to Trump.

And Graham seems to be a major anomaly here. These areas seem to be far enough out that the suburban Never Trump trend is overwhelmed by the exurban and rural Never Hillary tend. 

Turnout is up, more due to growth than interest. The exception is Newport which may actually be a rare case where a hot legislative race in 2012 got people out more than president did. Newport is also closer to Iowa City and sees a small gain in Democratic margin

Rural Rural Johnson County

The North Corridor precincts we just looked at are mostly suburban, but the final chunk of the county is where the farms and true small towns are. And as elsewhere in Iowa and the  nation, the Democrats got our asses handed to us here.

2016	Trump		Clinton		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
FR Lone Tree area	519	49.10%	465	43.99%	10	0.95%	46	4.35%	17	1.61%	1,063
HD Hardin (Cosgrove)	171	49.57%	153	44.35%	0	0.00%	13	3.77%	8	2.32%	348
HS Hills city	165	35.48%	256	55.05%	5	1.08%	27	5.81%	12	2.58%	469
LB rural Hills	175	45.10%	197	50.77%	3	0.77%	10	2.58%	3	0.77%	393
OX Oxford	396	47.65%	373	44.89%	11	1.32%	33	3.97%	18	2.17%	839
SN Sharon	201	55.83%	139	38.61%	1	0.28%	5	1.39%	14	3.89%	364
UN Union	189	44.47%	226	53.18%	3	0.71%	6	1.41%	1	0.24%	430
WS Washington	281	56.43%	173	34.74%	5	1.00%	20	4.02%	19	3.82%	505
Rural Rural subtotal	2,097	47.54%	1,982	44.93%	38	0.86%	160	3.63%	92	2.09%	4,411
2012	Romney		Obama		Stein		Johnson		Other		Total Votes
FR Lone Tree area	399	40.02%	582	58.38%	4	0.40%	9	0.90%	3	0.30%	1,001
HD Hardin (Cosgrove)	145	44.75%	173	53.40%	2	0.62%	2	0.62%	2	0.62%	329
HS Hills city	140	31.11%	294	65.33%	2	0.44%	11	2.44%	3	0.67%	452
LB rural Hills	157	40.89%	223	58.07%	0	0.00%	2	0.52%	2	0.52%	387
OX Oxford	304	35.56%	539	63.04%	1	0.12%	5	0.58%	6	0.70%	857
SN Sharon	208	57.14%	150	41.21%	2	0.55%	2	0.55%	2	0.55%	367
UN Union	180	41.57%	248	57.27%	1	0.23%	2	0.46%	2	0.46%	436
WS Washington	262	54.70%	207	43.22%	0	0.00%	2	0.42%	8	1.67%	480
Rural Rural subtotal	1,795	41.66%	2,416	56.07%	12	0.28%	35	0.81%	28	0.65%	4,309
2016 vs 2012 votes	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Total Votes
FR Lone Tree area	120		-117		6		37		14		62
HD Hardin (Cosgrove)	26		-20		-2		11		6		19
HS Hills city	25		-38		3		16		9		17
LB rural Hills	18		-26		3		8		1		6
OX Oxford	92		-166		10		28		12		-18
SN Sharon	-7		-11		-1		3		12		-3
UN Union	9		-22		2		4		-1		-6
WS Washington	19		-34		5		18		11		25
Rural Rural subtotal	302		-434		26		125		64		102
2016 vs 2012 %	Trump vs Romney		Clinton vs Obama		Stein 16 vs 12		Johnson 16 vs 12		Other 16 Vs 12		Net R Swing
FR Lone Tree area	9.08%		-14.38%		0.54%		3.45%		1.31%		23.46%
HD Hardin (Cosgrove)	4.81%		-9.05%		-0.62%		3.15%		1.70%		13.86%
HS Hills city	4.37%		-10.28%		0.63%		3.36%		1.91%		14.65%
LB rural Hills	4.22%		-7.30%		0.77%		2.06%		0.25%		11.52%
OX Oxford	12.10%		-18.16%		1.21%		3.39%		1.46%		30.25%
SN Sharon	-1.31%		-2.60%		-0.27%		0.84%		3.34%		1.29%
UN Union	2.90%		-4.10%		0.47%		0.95%		-0.23%		7.00%
WS Washington	1.73%		-8.48%		1.00%		3.60%		2.15%		10.20%
Rural Rural subtotal	5.88%		-11.14%		0.58%		2.82%		1.44%		17.02%

Sharon and Washington townships have always voted like pieces of GOP leaning Washington County that were accidentally surveyed into the wrong county. Sharon stays almost the same but Washington sees a 8.5 point shift sway from the Democrats to third parties.  Most of this massive 17 point shift across rural rural Johnson County was anti-Clinton. Amy Nielsen didn't see similar drops in her open legislative race. The third parties jumped from very low levels to numbers approaching the rest of the county.

Trump adds Cosgrove and, with shifts of Howard County proportions, Oxford and Lone Tree to the red column. The Hills area, so ancestrally Democratic that even I won it in my Some Dude legislative race 20 years ago, stays Democratic but sees a red shift that would have seemed big back when we were looking at cities. Overall, this adds up to a Trump win in this part of the county. Turnout was up in this low-growth area, with most of the increase coming from Lone Tree.

Democrats in every part of Iowa and every part of the nation have questions about how to proceed into the Trump Era. For Johnson County, the rural question is less pressing simply because of the nature of the county. The numbers in those places are relatively small. The real issue for local Democrats is how to gain back those third party votes - both on the Never Hillary Left and the Never Trump center right - while holding on to the upper income suburban voters who defected from Trump to Clinton.

Deeth's Deep Dig Into Voter ID Bill

It's difficult to critique the proposed voter ID legislation, with the Orwellian name "Voter Integrity," launched by Secretary of State Paul Pate on Thursday. That's because, even though it was no doubt drafted months ago at the right wing ALEC think tank, the actual full text of the bill is still unavailable.

That left 99 auditors and staffs in the dark Friday as we - when I say "we," I assume regular readers know that I'm a 19 year employee of the Johnson County auditor's office - as we tried to piece together information from stories that had the main headlines, but didn't have the kinds of details we need to do our jobs. Look, I know our convenience is not anyone's priority. But it WOULD be nice to know what's going on so we can offer our professional critiques of what will and won't work.

I get that ID is going to happen. I knew that Election Night. It's been dogma for the Republican base for years, they want it, they won. (In Iowa, they not only won but they got the most votes.) And I'm not going to debate the question itself. The facts are out there that voter impersonation, the only fraud IDs would stop, is non-existent.

But that's not the point. Either you philosophically believe that people should have to show an ID to vote, or you don't. I don't. Either you care that it is harder for certain types of people to get photo IDs, and that those people tend to be disproportionately at the margins of society and disproportionately vote one way, or you don't, or you DO care and that's exactly why you're doing this.

So instead I'm just going to dive deep into the details and half details that we have as of mid-day Saturday.

First, let's get up to speed about current Iowa law regarding IDs, which will require a long tangent into voter registration.

Most Iowa voters do not have to show an ID to vote. You do, however, need to provide an ID number to register to vote. This verification is required under the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which supposedly fixed everything that went wrong in Florida. I still get laughs when I describe it like that.

"My lishense number is 007."

If you have an Iowa license, you use that number. At this point, most voters pull out their licenses. I usually say, "I don't need to SEE it, but you do need to put down the number and I don't have mine memorized either."


If you don't have an Iowa license, which many many many out of state University of Iowa students do not have, you provide the last four digits of your social security number. I then take your form and go to a website hosted by the Iowa Department of Transportation. I look you up using your SSN, birth date, and name. Usually, it tells me that yes, you are a living human being. I stomp your form with a big red VERIFIED stomper and enter your data on the state voter system.

If your SSN does NOT verify, then I have to make your status "pending" and send you a letter. This is where we see a few problems. Making a long story short, because this post is going to be long enough as it is: The system has no kind of wild card search capability. You just have to keep guessing and entering variations on the name until you luck into the exact perfect spelling. Some types of names are harder to verify, especially any kind of compound last name. That disproportionately affects some kinds of people, especially Hispanic people who use the combined paternal and paternal surnames. But even O's and Macs have trouble sometimes.

For people who won't verify there are other ID options, and we're starting to circle back now toward the ID bill.

On maybe half a dozen occasions last fall I had voters (all new arrivals to Iowa and all with those compound names) who had tried and failed to get verified a couple times, where I could do was tell them, "I'm sorry, but can you come in with an ID?" They came in with their out of state licenses. Showing the valid license, even from another state, is automatic verification. (What I don't know is how many of those people who got Pending letters just never tried after that.)

So that's how it works until the voter registration deadline (10 days before general elections, 11 days for all others). After that, we switch into Election Day Registration (EDR) mode. That requires both a photo ID and proof of address. If you have an Iowa license with your current address, that covers it all. If you have an old Iowa address or an out of state license, you need to provide other proof of address. And you can only do this right when you're voting. You can't come in the Thursday before an election, do an EDR, then go to the polls Tuesday. You either vote early right now or you take your IDs to the polls.

Student IDs are not accepted for EDRs, because they don't have an expiration date. They would not be accepted as voter IDs under the proposed legislation, either. The simple solution would seem to be, well, add a date then.

What WOULD be accepted as a voter ID under the proposed law would be an Iowa - only Iowa - license (I use the terms "Iowa license" and "Iowa DOT non-driver ID" interchangeably), a military ID, or a passport. (Passports tend to belong to people who are wealthier and older.)  "If you don’t have an ID," Pate says, "we will send you a new voter registration card to use at the polls.

Not valid.

And that is my big question of the moment. It's not clear whether "we" is the Secretary of State, or the auditor's office, and it's not clear whether "a new voter registration card to use at the polls" means the same, non-photo, voter cards that auditors mail everyone already, or some kind of new ID. I've publicly asked and gotten no reply. It's also not clear what the turnaround time and cutoff dates will be, and in elections the workload increase week by week is exponential, not linear.

Or does it mean a free Iowa DOT non-driver ID? That's great. But it's only "free" if you also pay for: my ride to the DOT that's on the other side of town, the babysitter, the 1/2 day of work I missed, and the legal work to fix my birth certificate that has a spelling discrepancy in my middle name.

It's also not clear what this would do to election day registration voters. It would seem that an EDR voter moving within Iowa would be OK with an Iowa license with an old address and with another proof of address. But what happens to the voter with the out of state license? You can REGISTER with that, but you can't VOTE with that... so you can't register because you can't vote... Go back to your dorm room and get your passport.

Your US passport. With your real name. 

You see where this is going. ID laws are a game of margins. You're not going to make it impossible for very many people to vote, though that will happen. You're just going to make it impractical.

Another way to make it impractical is a longer line. Political differences on voter ID aside, this is definitely going to slow down the line for everyone. Pate is implausibly claiming that scannable IDs will speed things up. Maybe that one step is faster, IF the scanners are working right. But you're adding the additional steps of everyone getting out the ID, people not finding it, people who don't have them and need to vote provisional ballots...

...and signature verification. Pate has always been more interested in signature verification than in photo ID. (Which tells me that Pate got on board and this proposal is THE election bill backed by Republican legislative leadership, and not the Pate Bully Pulpit bill.)

Most counties with electronic poll books use the Precinct Atlas program, which does not include images of signatures. This program has some networking capabilities but is designed to be a stand-alone program. It works off a downloaded copy of the voter file that’s updated as late as possible before election day.

The IVoters statewide voter registration software that we use in auditors offices (and at some satellite sites) to do the bulk of our work does include imaging. It’s an entirely on-line program, connected to a central server.

Under tight 24 hour security. 

So signature verification at the polls would require either 1) IVoters at every precinct, meaning Internet and I mean SECURE Internet at every precinct, so that poll workers could look at images of past signatures. Even in Johnson County, Internet can get iffy in rural areas, and there's likely a few polling places in the state that can barely get cellphone service. It would also mean upgrades to IVoters because it’s not designed for processing election day voters.

Or signature verification at the polls would require 2) A new version of Precinct Atlas that incorporates imaging, either through, again, a live Internet connection, or through some kind of gigantic download of image files – which even for small images like signatures takes up a lot of drive space.

There's also an inconsistency: Some voters have only ever registered through the DOT or through the new on-line registration program that started last year. Those signatures are on file with the DOT, but are NOT on IVoters.

(Aside: Bringing the smaller counties on board with electronic poll books is a good thing, though the money in the bill is for LOANS to counties, so they'll still have to find the money locally. A lot of things in this bill will increase local expenses, which has been the Branstad/GOP legislature mode for ages. Brag about state level tax cuts, pass the costs down to the locals.)

A few issues were left out of Thursday's press conference: satellite voting, numbers of days of in person early voting, straight tickets, and redistricting. That doesn't necessarily mean those things are safe, because we don't have the full text of the bill.

The item Pate mentioned that got the least attention was: "Creating a deadline for proxies to return collected voter registration forms and absentee ballots to the county auditor’s office." That created some confusion in our office, as the word "proxy" has a very narrow and specific meaning in Auditor Speak (overseas ballots requested by relatives).

This is directed at door knocking and especially at ballot chasing, which Democrats do a lot more than Republicans. Pate has long been an opponent of ballot chasing, saying in his 2010 campaign that no one but an election worker or a letter carrier should handle your ballot.

Without details I can't comment much. There's already a deadline for ballot requests; campaigns need to bring them in within 72 hours. (There's a hole in the law because three day weekends are longer than 72 hours. You can't drop off your Friday night requests on Monday if we're closed.) This occasionally gets missed, usually because a volunteer didn't get the forms to headquarters fast enough. It got passed in the 2003-04 session after the 2002 Democratic field campaign had the stupid strategy of sitting on requests for months, turning in their requests batched by precinct, so they could then ballot chase by precinct.

For a couple hours Thursday the phrase "shorter absentee voting period" was floating around, leading us to think we'd see fewer days of voting at auditor's office. Turns out, the press was using the term "absentee" voting to refer to voting by MAIL.

Under the proposed bill, the deadline to request a mailed ballot would be 10 days before a general election (11 days for all others). I'm not gonna lie. This will make my job easier. But that's not why I chose to make my career in elections. My job is helping people vote, not making my life easier.

The pace of vote by mail requests drops a bit during the last week. Campaigns stop doing mailings and stop getting requests at the door (except in 2014), and voters realize there just isn't time. The successful return rate is also lower. But there's always some people who have no other way to vote.

I looked at the numbers yesterday. Johnson County saw 663 domestic vote by mail requests between Monday, October 31 (eight days out) and Friday, November 4, the current legal deadline. (Until 2004, there was no deadline at all. You could request a mailed ballot the day before the election, and I saw people successfully vote that way.) Of those 663 requests, 484 ballots were successfully returned on time and counted. That's people who at best would have had a lot harder time voting and for many that's people not able to vote at all.

The proposed legislation would also set a first day to request a mailed ballot at 120 days out, which would be early July.  That used to be 70 days (late August) until 2004; now there's no first day at all. I have a folder at work with local election requests that were signed a year ago.

This would cut a little time off the Democratic field canvass, but I actually think that's good. As the Dems found by crunching the numbers from the 2014 disaster, the earliest requests, like the late late requests, have a poor return rate. In my county, everyone moves on August 1st. That's why I've argued long and hard against including absentee requests in caucus packets - and that's why I took them OUT of the packets this year.

Leaving the field staff aside and looking only at self-starting voters, I have trouble seeing how anyone would be "disenfranchised" by having to wait till July to turn in a form. That's because overseas and military voters are covered by the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) and would be exempt from both the first day and last day requirements.

 "Requiring an ID number for voting by absentee ballot" just feels like a nitpick. The argument is that this will make it easier to search and match voters. But IVoters has enough search functions that the ID number isn't really necessary.  I can probably find you with your initials and birth date, or even your age. (The biggest barrier to finding a voter? Legibility.)

Requiring ID numbers on requests and ballots (presumably ballot ENVELOPES, another case where public discussion and Auditor Speak are different languages) does two things. One, it attempts to dodge the inevitable question "well, if we have to show ID at the polls, what about absentees?" The reality here is: if you required a photocopy of an ID, it would disenfranchise a lot of older rural Republicans who don't have a printer-copier at home.

Two, it makes it marginally less likely for the field staffer to get that request form at the door. "Oh, I can't find my license."

It's spelled "licence."

"I'll just mail this form in later," which maybe the voter does and maybe the voter doesn't. (A lot of unreturned absentee ballots are because the voter simply signed the request form to make the door knocker go away.)

Since I'm already at 2500 words long and 48 hours after Pate's press conference, I'll save the issue of combining city and school elections for another post, other than to note that it is technically and logistically a lot harder than it sounds, and that it is unlikely to save much if any money.

I know a lot of auditors of both parties. Almost every one is an election administrator first and a partisan later if at all. And auditors aren't fans of voter ID. Not because it will be more work, though it will be. But because they've been on the front lines of dealing with the public and they know that it doesn't solve anything and that it will make it harder for the voters.

Some version of this bill will pass. That was decided in the election. The question is whether the Republican legislators will listen to the people who know the most about this, or whether throwing red meat at a problem that doesn't exist, with the barely hidden agenda of partisan gain, is more important.