Three Republicans vie for party spot to seek new Iowa House District 58

By Bob Steenson, bsteenson@charlescitypress.com

Three people are seeking the Republican nomination for the new Iowa House District 58 seat that was created this year through redistricting, and the party candidate will be selected in the party primary being held next Tuesday.

There is no Democratic candidate for the office running in the primary election.

Rep. Todd Prichard, D-Charles City, lives in the new district made up of all of Floyd County except for Rock Grove and Rockford townships, all of Chickasaw County and the northwestern eight counties in Bremer County, but Prichard decided to not run for re-election.

The three Republican candidates are Charley Thomson of Charles City, Sean Galleger of Fairbank and Jim Wright of Sumner.

The Press asked each of the three candidates the same questions regarding their interest in the office and specific state issues.

In addition to biographical information, the Press asked:

• Why are you running for this position?

• What are the top three challenges facing the state, and how would you deal with them?

• What is your opinion on eminent domain, especially as it relates to the proposed pipeline projects in the state?

• What should Iowa’s position be on access to abortion, especially if, as anticipated, the Supreme Court makes a significant change in states’ abilities to set their own laws regarding this topic?

Here are their responses (some answers have been shortened for space limitations, their complete responses are part of this story at www.charlescitypress.com):

Sean Galleger, age 64, of Fairbank.

• Family: I am married and we have two children (twins).

• Employment history: I’ve worked in business and industry all across the U.S. for the last 30 years. I finished my career at Iowa State University and retired from there in 2020. At ISU I was involved in CIRAS (the Center for Industrial Research and Service), which is basically the Extension Service for the college of engineering to businesses and industry, particularly manufacturing firms.

• Public service experience: Mostly church related. We moved around so much I was always in different cities. And with my past job with Iowa State University as an employee of the state it was difficult to get involved in politics.

• Why running? I’ve always been a pretty staunch Republican, and I’ve been wanting to get involved. Once we landed back here I wanted to start getting involved. Now, after redistricting, District 58 had an open seat, so I decided it was a good time to run.

With my background I’m a candidate that’s very conservative and 100% behind business and industry and economic development. That’s where I come from and how I attack issues and problems.

• Top three challenges? I think the Legislature just took care of a few of them at the end of this session. Inflation, education and probably COVID right now are the big three.

I think we have to do something at the state level to minimize the economics of inflation. I’m not sure of what that is until I’m a part of it.

I think the state response to COVID has been great. I would keep doing that.

Education is a big one. I think the right step would be to figure out a different funding mechanism for schools so they can get more funding and also I pretty much believe in the school choice position that was out there that just got voted down. I think implementing school choice and changing funding streams are important.

• Eminent domain? Quite honestly, I’m not knowledgeable enough to give an opinion on the CO2 pipeline. Everyone has problems with eminent domain, especially when it effects them. I would defer to where it is in the Legislature and pretty much follow the Republican Party.

• Abortion? I think the Legislature is going to have to address laws that are currently on the books and enact new laws. I believe the Republican platform has pretty thoroughly defined our position on that. My position parallels the Republican platform’s positions on pending legislation.

Charley Thomson, age 62, of Charles City.

• Family: My living family members are my father, Robert L. Thomson, 96, of Charles City; my brother, Peter W. Thomson, 65, of Dallas; and my sister, Molly Thomson, 63, of Charles City. My mother, Janan, passed away in 1993. My brother Steve died in 2017. I grew up in Charles City, moved away for college and law school, practiced law in Chicago, then returned to Charles City in 2008. We’re a very tight-knit family, for which I’m very grateful. I particularly enjoy spending time with and learning from my dad.

• Employment history: I have been employed as Assistant General Counsel and National Credit Manager at DoALL Company for 22 years. Prior to that, I worked at various law firms and law departments in Chicago. Prior to that, I worked at Allen Travel Agency and the Ben Franklin store in Charles City. Somewhere during my college and law school years, I worked in the Santa Fe Southern Pacific law department in Chicago, The Michigan Daily in Ann Arbor, Senator Grassley’s office (I was his 1981 press intern), and Inquiry magazine in Washington, D.C.

• Public service experience: I have never held elective office. I have been a member of the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Floyd County for many years; I am currently co-chair. I have been a delegate to the Republican district conventions. I’m former President of the Charles City YMCA Foundation. I’m currently a member of the Boards of Directors of both the Iowa and Chicago Rosecrance Foundations. I’m a former member of the Advisory Board of The Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago. I have been a member of the Union League Club of Chicago for 19 years. I’m an active member of St. Philomena Roman Catholic Church, which is a Latin Mass Catholic church staffed by priests from the Society of St. Pius X. The church is located in Bremer, Iowa.

• Why running?

A. The rights and liberties of Iowans are under attack from leftists in the Federal government and here in Iowa. From vaccine mandates to the “Disinformation Governance Board” to disastrous inflation and shortages, we, as Iowans, are facing concerted efforts to undermine our way of life, our standard of living, and our fundamental liberties. Iowa has to fight back and preserve our rights and liberties for future generations. The Iowa General Assembly is key to this effort. I am running for this office to do everything I can to protect my fellow Iowans and to preserve these rights and liberties. Like our flag says, “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”

B. I am frustrated and angry that Iowans have recently repeatedly elected “Republicans” to the General Assembly, yet these very same “Republicans” seem to turn into something else when it comes time to vote on legislation. Notable recent examples are the Educational Savings Accounts advanced by the Governor, the proposed ban on Covid “vaccine” mandates, and right-to-life legislation. All of these measures failed in the General Assembly because many “Republicans” wound up supporting the other party. I am running to make sure that my House District does not have that problem. I support Governor Reynolds on Educational Savings Accounts and the general need to expand educational options for primary education. These options have to include greater access to private schools and enhanced support for homeschooling. We have to reign in the attempts by misguided Iowa educators and administrators to indoctrinate children in Marxist political doctrines and toxic (and highly inappropriate) theories on “gender identity.”

• Top three challenges?

A. Will Iowa be pro-life or pro-abortion? With Roe and Casey now apparently facing repudiation by the United States Supreme Court, it appears that each state will be establishing its own laws on abortion. The Iowa House, right now, appears to be close to 50/50 on the issue. It is possible, then, that this race could decide the question for all of Iowa.

This is a major point of disagreement between my opponents and me. I am strongly and unequivocally pro-life. I see no other rational conclusion as a matter of law, science, and ethics than the conclusion that human life begins at the moment of conception. If that is the starting point, application of the Constitution (especially the 14th Amendment) leads to the inescapable conclusion that someone who intentionally ends that human life is very likely participating in a murder.

My opponents are either not willing to say, as a matter of law, when life begins or are openly pro-choice.

B. School choice. I support Governor Reynolds on Educational Savings Accounts. I regard them as a good first step. I want to see Iowa do more to support private schools.

C. Federal over-reach. The Federal government is now regularly attempting to impose illegal edicts on the State of Iowa and on individual Iowans. The time has come for Iowa to assert vigorously its rights under the Constitution on behalf of itself and its citizens.

A good example is the “Disinformation Governance Board.” I do not claim to be any sort of fancy expert on Constitutional Law, but I have practiced law for 34 years, so I think I may know a thing or two about at least the basics. It is my belief, looking at the Constitution and the case law, that every aspect of the idea of the “Disinformation Governance Board” – including the very name of the entity – is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. It is a brazen attempt by the Federal government to impose content regulation (i.e., censorship) on core political speech. It is similarly a blatant violation of the Iowa Constitution’s free speech protections.

I believe the Iowa General Assembly as a body and its each of its members as individuals have a Constitutional obligation to stand up and resist this entire enterprise. It is their duty as office holders who have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I see this as a huge issue which, unfortunately, has not been adequately addressed either by my opponents in this race or by the media.

• Eminent domain?

I have strong opinions on this topic, so my answer to your question will likely be much longer than you anticipated. For those of your readers who want a summary of my position, it’s this: I am very much opposed to the proposed carbon-capture pipeline, and if elected I will do everything in my power to keep it from passing through our district. I think the broader goal should be to kill this monster altogether, as it is both terrible for Iowa and terrible public policy.

Here’s the longer version:

While I agree that the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court appears to hold that, sometimes, it is not unconstitutional to use eminent domain for the benefit of private parties, I’m not sure that Kelo is the last word on this topic, and I’m certain that the carbon capture pipeline scheme cannot and should not use the Kelo theory to move forward. Just because Kelo may permit some eminent domain takings for private recipients, it doesn’t necessarily follow that such takings are a good idea or sound public policy.

The government’s eminent domain power, by its nature, is so overbearing, intrusive, and disruptive to the lives of private citizens that it should only be used after all other avenues have been tried. Even then, it should only be imposed with great care and the lightest possible touch. It follows then that, of all eminent domain takings, the novel and highly controversial use of eminent domain for the benefit of private interests should be extremely rare and resorted to only after careful, painstaking deliberation and meticulous observance of due process.

Keeping those principles in mind, I think it’s fair to say that, of the entire possible universe of private developments where use of eminent domain for a private purpose would both make public policy sense and pass Constitutional muster, the carbon-capture pipeline idea might be the single worst candidate imaginable for use of eminent domain powers. It’s so absurd that it would almost be comic if it weren’t so dangerous.

Here, in summary form, are some of the reasons why eminent domain should not be permitted to be invoked for completion of this project:

1. Rather than being used as the last resort by its proponents, it appears to have been used as their first option. This approach smacks of cronyism and unjust manipulation of the process.

2. It is plainly a use of eminent domain power in the area where eminent domain’s appropriateness is most suspect: Clearing the way for purely private profit. Private profit is terrific, and we should all welcome the concept of people making money. But using the sledgehammer of eminent domain to obtain private profit should, as a matter of public policy, be presumed to be an abuse of the system. That presumption is not rebutted in this case.

3. Rather than being invoked and imposed only after assiduous due process for all involved, the carbon capture project is almost a textbook example of high-handed arrogant outsiders shutting down legitimate, grassroots criticism.

4. The persons whose safety will be put at risk by this project have not been afforded any meaningful opportunity for their concerns to be addressed.

5. While it is clear that private interests will benefit handsomely from this project, there are serious, thus-far unanswered questions concerning whether the scheme will work as forecast, let alone whether there will be long- or short-term public benefit.

6. Even if the project works perfectly, there appears to be no financial compensation to landowners and other interested parties who will bear the burden of soil compaction and subsidence.

7. It appears possible that, if the safety concerns being raised by critics prove correct (or, at the very least, are not convincingly disproven), no rational person would agree to live in the vicinity of this proposed project due to possible injury.

8. The persons who would have to live in the vicinity of the pipeline will accordingly have significant safety risks imposed on them, with neither compensation for this imposed risk nor due process for the taking of their rights to quiet enjoyment of their property. It also could be imposing a huge, uncompensated burden on the residents of every township and county through which the pipeline would pass.

9. Given the questions surrounding the underlying theory of anthropogenic climate change, it is entirely possible that the public policies underlying the massive subsidies that support the pipeline’s construction and operation may change. If this happens, the company that created and ran the pipeline (and the persons supporting it now) may abandon the project. The landowners along the proposed pipeline route could be left with a non-functioning, dangerous public nuisance with no viable financial mechanism to remedy the problem. The only options for fixing the problem would be the landowners, the local taxing authorities, and the State of Iowa.

• Abortion? In my opinion, the decisions in Roe and Casey have done much to diminish respect for the rule of law in the United States. It has always been difficult to reconcile the Roe-Casey line of cases with the Tenth Amendment, the notion of limited Federal powers, equal protection analysis, and the Constitution. As time has passed and scholarship has piled up, it’s become increasingly difficult to support Roe and Casey as being much more than naked outcome-based jurisprudence. If the leaked draft of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, is, in fact, issued as the opinion of the Court, the Supreme Court would take the first step in correcting these errors.

The draft opinion in Dobbs would restore recognition to the power and authority of the State of Iowa to determine its own criminal and civil laws in an important area. I believe that Iowa statutes and jurisprudence should be based on common sense as perceived by Iowans, on Iowans’ received view of the common law, and, at times where appropriate, on the carefully scrutinized and decerned opinions and recommendations of scientists and experts. I believe all of these bases of public policy compel formal recognition in Iowa law of this one salient fact: Human life begins at the moment of conception. I have yet to find a rational basis for concluding that human life begins at some other moment.

Every human life is a person, and every person present in Iowa whose parents are in Iowa is very likely a citizen of the United States and the State of Iowa. Under the Constitution, no person can be deprived of life without due process. One or both parents electing to take the life of their child is certainly not due process. Accordingly, the law of Iowa, under both the State and Federal Constitutions, can not permit elective abortion. Further, any person performing an abortion or facilitating an abortion in Iowa may well be exposing themselves to civil liability for wrongful death.

Jim Wright, age 62, of Sumner.

• Family: I live with my wife of 39 years. We have one son who lives in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

• Employment history: I recently retired from a 40-year career as a band director and technology coordinator. For the past 20 years my wife and I have taught at Sumner High School and Sumner-Fredericksburg High School.

• Public service experience: I have not held elected office prior to this campaign.

• Why running? I believe in the concept of the citizen legislators who give their time for a limited number of years and with my recent retirement I now have the time and inclination to undertake new responsibilities. I feel strongly about the issue of public education and want be a voice for education in the Legislature.

• Top three challenges:

A) Public education funding and the diversion of funds to private schools.

B) Protecting individual liberty and privacy by limiting government intrusion into the private lives of citizens.

C) The misuse of eminent domain for private enterprise.

• Eminent domain? I am opposed to the use of eminent domain to benefit private enterprise.

• Abortion? I do not believe that the government at any level should be involved in the decision to obtain an abortion. This is a very personal decision that should be protected by a right to privacy.

VOTING INFORMATION

Advance voting for the party primary election is still available at the Floyd County auditor’s office today (Friday) until 5 p.m., and Saturday, June 4, and Monday, June 6, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

You must be registered with a party to vote in that party’s primary, although you can declare or change a registration at the polling site.

Polls will be open Tuesday, June 7, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., at these precinct polling places:

• Charles City 1 – Floyd County Courthouse.

• Charles City 2 – Messiah Lutheran Church.

• Charles City 3/St. Charles North – Trinity United Methodist Church.

• Rudd/Floyd/Cedar Niles – Floyd Community Center.

• Scott/Union/Pleasant Grove – Marble Rock Library.

• Ulster/St. Charles South/Riverton – Floyd County Fairgrounds.

• Rock Grove – Nora Springs City Hall.

• Rockford – Rockford City Hall.

OTHER ELECTIONS

There is only one true race in the party primary election this year for Floyd County offices. Stewart Dalton and Josh Mack, both of Charles City, are seeking the Democratic nomination to run for county supervisor representing Supervisor District 2.

The only other Democrat seeking county office is Mark Kuhn of Charles City, running unopposed for the Democratic nomination to represent Supervisor District 1.

The Republican candidates are all running unopposed for their party nomination for county offices.

They are Amy Assink, Charles City, county recorder; Rachel Ginbey, Rockford, county attorney; Jessie Lynn Holm, Charles City, county treasurer; Julias Bryant, Charles City, Supervisor District 1; Dennis Keifer, Charles City, Supervisor District 2; and Jeff Hawbaker, Floyd, Supervisor District 3.

Assink and Ginbey are the only incumbents of either party seeking reelection to county office this year. Treasurer Frank Rottinghaus is retiring and none of the current county supervisors is seeking reelection under the new districting system in place for the first time this election.

The only Democratic candidate for local legislative races is Whitney Mixdorf of Clear Lake for Iowa Senate District 30, which includes Rock Grove and Rockford townships in Floyd County. There are no Democratic candidates for Iowa House District 58 or 60, or for Senate District 29.

Jane Bloomingfield of Northwood and Deb Hild of Clear Lake are running for the Republican nomination to run for Iowa House District 60.

Incumbent Waylon Brown of Osage is running unopposed for the Republican nomination for Senate District 30 and Sandy Salmon of Jansesville is running unopposed for the GOP nomination for Senate District 29.

Voters will also help decide their party’s nominees for state and federal offices, including U.S. Senate, U.S. House District 2, governor, secretary of state, treasurer, secretary of agriculture, attorney general and state auditor.