Bill banning handheld cellphone use while driving heads to governor's desk
After years of failed starts, the Iowa Legislature has finally sent legislation banning the handheld use of cellphones while driving to Gov. Kim Reynolds.
The Iowa House passed Senate File 22 on a 84-11 vote Wednesday. The legislation is an expansion of Iowa's current laws banning texting while driving to cover any handheld use of a cellphone. Drivers could still use a device in hands-free or voice-activated modes under the legislation.
If signed into law, the bill would be enacted July 1, 2025, when law enforcement officers would begin giving warnings for violation of the measure. Beginning Jan. 1, 2026, violations of the law would result in a fine of $100. If the incident results in an injury, that fine would increase to $500; in cases causing death, the fine would be $1,000.
It's a change to Iowa law that law enforcement officers have been asking the Legislature to pass for years, as Iowa's current distracted driving laws are difficult to enforce. An officer who sees a person using a cellphone behind the wheel often cannot tell if a person was texting or using their phone for an approved function, like navigation.
Though sought by law enforcement and families of people who died in accidents involving distracted drivers, the measure has for years failed to advance through the Iowa House.
Rep. Sean Bagniewski, D-Des Moines, thanked the families who came to speak with lawmakers at subcommittee meetings and with committee members about the measure, saying 'their advocacy, for years now, is what brought us to this moment.'
This year, the measure gained more momentum as Reynolds called for lawmakers to support a measure to ban the handheld use of cellphones while driving in her January Condition of the State address, which she said will help prevent traffic deaths.
The measure received only one 'no' vote in the Iowa Senate from Sen. Kerry Gruenhagen, R-Walcott. In the House Wednesday, 10 Republicans and one Democrat voted against the measure.
No representatives spoke in opposition to the bill during floor debate.
Rep. Ann Meyer, R-Fort Dodge, floor manager for the legislation, thanked the Iowans who for years spoke about the need to pass a ban on the use of handheld electronic advices behind the wheel.
'Thanks to everyone who's worked on this bill over the years, especially thanks to the families — telling your story is very difficult, but it has made a difference,' Meyer said. 'I do believe this legislation will save lives.'
Advocates celebrated the bill's passage Wednesday. Luke Hoffman, executive director of the Iowa Bicycle Coalition, said in a news release the bill 'will save lives and make our roads safer for all Iowans'
'Iowa urgently needs a hands-free driving law, and the Iowa Bike Coalition has worked towards this day for nearly seven years since it was first introduced,' Hoffman said. 'We have been persistent in our efforts because of the stories our advocates elevate of Iowans impacted by this issue. … We do this for them, for their families, and know that this new law will for a fact prevent unnecessary future loss of loved ones. This law is the seatbelt law of our generation, and we will be working in the coming months to educate the general public on how we can all change behavior so we can save lives, together.'
The measure heads to Reynolds, who is expected to sign the measure into law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats hear some criticism as redistricting talk picks up
Outside groups are raising concerns that Democrats risk violating the Voting Rights Act with redistricting plans, creating a new problem for the party as it seeks to answer GOP efforts to redistrict its way to more power. Democrats say they have to take action to draw new House districts in states they control in response to power plays by a Trump-driven GOP in Texas and other states. But the tit-for-tat has left groups leaving the door open to litigation. They also are making a moral case, arguing Democrats are thwarting the democratic process. 'This is dead wrong from a democracy perspective, I think it's very problematic for Democrats from a political strategic perspective,' explained Dan Vicuna, director of voting and fair representation at Common Cause. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is the only Democratic governor so far to signal he's considering several ways to counter the GOP's efforts in Texas. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Newsom said any move by California 'is predicated on Texas moving forward' with its own redistricting plan, which some have seen as a way for the Lone Star State to make it more likely to hold on to five House seats. Several other Democratic governors, including Govs. Kathy Hochul of New York, Phil Murphy of New Jersey and JB Pritzker of Illinois have left the door open to possibly changing their maps. The GOP may also not be done. The White House is reportedly pushing Missouri to consider redrawing its map. Civil rights and voting groups are worried actions by both parties could undermine or weaken the political power of historically marginalized minority communities. The issue is a thorny one for Democrats, who have positioned themselves as the prodemocracy party and championed racial justice initiatives. At the same time, Democratic states just like Republican states have been sued by civil rights groups over Voting Rights Act violations. Both Democrats and Republicans have also been found guilty of creating gerrymandered maps. 'We have sued both Democrats and Republicans on these issues,' said Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. 'So yes, we are concerned that when leaders of either party seek to take maximum advantage, partisan advantage of redistricting, they often neglect, if not ignore, the imperatives of the Voting Rights Act with respect to reliably Democratic voting groups.' Some groups are also frustrated given efforts by blue states to move beyond gerrymandering. 'Independent commissions like the gold standard in California were created specifically to avoid what's being considered here, which is voting maps drawn for the sole purpose of protecting incumbent politicians and political party interests to the exclusion of community needs and community feedback,' Vicuna said. California Common Cause was intimately involved in the creation of California's independent commission. It could be difficult for some Democratic-held states to answer Texas. Several would likely need to change their state constitution and work around their respective redistricting commissions. Should the Lone Star State craft new House lines, John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates, in a statement said they would be met 'with a wall of resistance and a wave of legal challenges.' His statement did not address Democratic-led states mulling their own midcycle redistricting. Democrats argue that if Republicans are headed down that road, nothing should be off the table for them as well. 'Republicans should be careful what they ask for,' Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), chair of the House Democrats' campaign arm, told The Hill in a statement. 'And if they go down this path? Absolutely folks are going to respond across the country. We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine the voices of the American people.' Democrats are also leaning into the issue of democracy, saying the longevity of the country is at stake if the party does not respond. Newsom painted the situation in grim terms, saying on Friday, 'I believe that the people of the state of California understand what's at stake. If we don't put a stake into the heart of this administration, there may not be an election in 2028.' 'We can sit back and act as if we have some moral superiority and watch this 249, almost 250-year experiment be washed away,' Newsom said. 'We are not going to allow that to happen. We have agency, we can shape the future.' Civil rights and voting-focused groups, however, are concerned about the ramifications midcycle redistricting could have moving forward, including the possibility of what was once considered a decennial process after each U.S. census turning into a cyclical issue. 'One of the concerns that we have is, even if blue states have power and have a majority in their legislature to redraw maps, our concern is that this could set a bad precedent, because those states could, at the same time, flip in the future,' said Jose Barrera Novoa, vice president of the far west for the League of United Latin American Citizens. 'And the same thing is going to happen where … other parties are going to look to redraw the map midcycle or even quarterly. Who knows?' he asked. 'It's all hypothetical, yet it's still very possible.' Not only could a potential redistricting tit-for-tat raise questions over whether this could be repeated in the future, experts also worry about the financial toll it could take on their resources and voters themselves. 'These are judges managing these cases, hearing these cases. Many of these people are paid out by state funds, and federal cases, of course, are also paid by voters directly,' explained Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters, noting cases that use taxpayer funds. 'Do we really want to spend this time doing this highly unusual activity when we're all going to have to pay for it?'
Boston Globe
2 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
It's a year of rapid change, except when it comes to Trump's approval numbers, AP-NORC polling finds
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Advertisement But even those shifts are within a relatively narrow range, which is typical for Trump. Advertisement Those long-term trends underscore that Trump has many steadfast opponents. But loyal supporters also help explain why views of the president are hard to change even as he pursues policies that most Americans do not support, using an approach that many find abrasive. Trump has not had a traditional honeymoon period in his second term. He did not in his first, either. The recent slippage on immigration is particularly significant because that issue was a major strength for Trump in the 2024 election. Earlier in his second term, it was also one of the few areas where he was outperforming his overall approval. In March, about half of US adults approved of his handling of immigration. But the July AP-NORC poll found his approval on immigration at 43 percent, in line with his overall approval rating. Other recent polls show growing discontent with Trump's approach to immigration. Advertisement 'I understand wanting to get rid of illegal immigrants, but the way that's being done is very aggressive,' said Donovan Baldwin, 18, of Asheboro, N.C., who did not vote in the 2024 election. 'And that's why people are protesting because it comes off as aggression. It's not right.' Ratings of Trump's handling of the economy, which were more positive during his first term, have been persistently negative in his second term. The July poll found that few Americans think Trump's policies have benefited them so far. Even if he is not a fan of everything Trump has done so far, Brian Nichols, 58, of Albuquerque, is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Nichols, who voted for Trump in 2024, likes what he is seeing from the president overall, though he has his concerns both on style and substance, particularly Trump's social media presence and his on-again, off-again tariffs. Nichols also does not like the push to eliminate federal agencies such as the Education Department. Despite his occasional disagreements with Trump, though, Nichols said he wants to give the president space to do his job, and he trusts the House and Senate, now run by Republicans, to act as a safeguard. 'We put him into office for a reason, and we should be trusting that he's doing the job for the best of America,' Nichols said. Trump has spent the past six months pushing far-reaching and often unpopular policies. Earlier this year, Americans were bracing themselves for higher prices as a result of his approach to tariffs. The July poll found that most people think Trump's tax and spending bill will benefit the wealthy, while few think it will pay dividends for the middle class or people like them. Advertisement Discomfort with individual policies may not translate into wholesale changes in views of Trump, though. Those have largely been constant through years of turmoil, with his favorability rating staying within a 10-percentage-point range through the COVID-19 pandemic, a felony conviction, and attempted assassination. To some of his supporters, the benefits of his presidency far outweigh the costs. Kim Schultz, 62, of Springhill, Fla., said she is thrilled with just about everything Trump is doing as president, particularly his aggressive moves to deport anyone living in the country illegally. Even if Trump's tariffs eventually take effect and push prices up, she said she will not be alarmed. 'I've always had the opinion that if the tariffs are going to cost me a little bit more here and there, I don't have a problem with that,' she said. Across the country, Hildenbrand dislikes Trump's personality and his penchant for insults, including those directed at foreign leaders. But he thinks Trump is making things happen. 'More or less, to me, he's showing that he's on the right track,' he said. 'I'm not in favor of Trump's personality, but I am in favor of what he's getting done.'
UPI
2 minutes ago
- UPI
Lawmakers clash on potential Maxwell pardon but work together on bill
Lawmakers are disagreeing about whether convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell should be granted a pardon by President Donald Trump. But Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., are working together on a bill to force the president to release the files on the Jeffrey Epstein case. File photo by Rick Bajornas/UN photo handout July 27 (UPI) -- United States Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson said on Sunday that he would have "great pause" if President Donald Trump pardoned Ghislaine Maxwell, but said it was Trump's decision. But Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said that "whatever they need to do to compel [Maxwell's] testimony, as long as it's truthful, I would be in favor of," on Meet the Press Sunday. Maxwell is the convicted associate of the late child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, who died in jail. Maxwell, with her attorney, met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche for two days last week, which sparked the conversation around a potential pardon. She has served five years of a 20-year sentence. There have been growing calls from Democrats and Republicans for Trump to release files on the Epstein case. "If you're asking my opinion, I think 20 years was a pittance. I think she should have a life sentence at least. I mean, think of all these unspeakable crimes," Johnson told Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker. "It's hard to put into words how evil this was, and that she orchestrated it and was a big part of it, at least under the criminal sanction, I think is an unforgivable thing. So again, not my decision, but I have great pause about that, as any reasonable person would." When Welker pushed directly on whether Johnson favored a pardon, Johnson deferred to Trump. "Obviously that's a decision of the president. I won't get it in front of him. That's not my lane," he said. Welker conducted a joint interview with Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who are working together to push Trump to release the files. Khanna disagreed. "No, I don't" believe that Maxwell should be pardoned or have her sentence commuted. He said he is "concerned" about her meeting with Blanche. "Look, I agree with Congressman Massie that she should testify, but she's been indicted twice on perjury. This is why we need the files," Khanna added. Khanna and Massie are co-sponsoring a bill that would force the Trump administration to publish "all unclassified records" on Epstein. "Politics is the art of the doable," Massie said Sunday. "There's enough public pressure right now that we can get 218 votes and force this to a vote on the floor." Nearly a dozen House Republicans have signed on to back Massie's joint measure with Khanna. Some Democrats, including Reps. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., also signed on. Massie also went on ABC News' This Week, and said "Well, I think we should get a lot more than just the (birthday) book. Let's get the financial records of the estate. Where is it - follow the money, as they say up here," Massie told co-anchor Jonathan Karl. "We should look at the plea bargain. Open that up. See what was the deal? What was the deal that was cut? I think there's a lot more than just that letter." He told Karl about the bill. "It would force a full release of the files. It has the force of law," Massie said on This Week. "It's not a subpoena. It's not a 'Pretty please, would you release the files?' It's the force of law and it's got protections to redact victims' names and to prevent, you know, release of child pornography." Khanna added that Democrats' interest in the case is not new. "We have been pushing for transparency during the Biden administration, both in 2021 and 2024, the court ordered release of documents, but Donald Trump raised the stakes and he did it in a way in the campaign that was justified. He said, 'Look, when I get there, I'm going to release the files,'" Khanna said.
