UPDATE: Vander Plaats wants redo on Cramer confirmation

2013-04-11T15:00:00Z 2013-09-18T13:00:29Z UPDATE: Vander Plaats wants redo on Cramer confirmationBy ROD BOSHART, Lee-Gazette Des Moines Bureau Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier

DES MOINES, Iowa --- Conservative activist Bob Vander Plaats said Thursday his Family Leader ally Robert Cramer was the victim of an unconstitutional religious “litmus test” in calling for Gov. Terry Branstad and Senate Democrats to “re-vote” on his confirmation to the state Board of Regents.

While noting that such a confirmation reconsideration would be “atypical and highly unusual,” Vander Plaats told a Statehouse news conference that “it would be a breath of fresh air” for Senate Majority Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, to join with Branstad to identify a remedy that ensures Cramer’s service as a regent.

Vander Plaats, a former GOP gubernatorial candidate who now serves as president of the Family Leader, called on the Iowa Senate to “right” their “wrong” by confirming Cramer in “a re-vote.”

“To do this would be a great example of leadership for Iowans. It’s never too late to do what’s right,” said Vander Plaats, who called it “more than disturbing” to see Cramer rejected because majority Senate Democrats “deemed him unfit because he holds to some core standards, some core values, one of them being that he believes marriage is the union of a man and a woman.”

Gronstal shrugged off Vander Plaats’ news conference, saying the Sioux City Republican “was pretty much dismissed” after a trio of unsuccessful bids to become Iowa’s governor. He added “the charge is absurd” that Vander Plaats was turned down on the basis of a religious litmus test.

The Senate voted 27-23 Monday to reject Cramer’s gubernatorial appointment to a six-year term on the regents’ panel that oversees the University of Iowa, Iowa State University, the University of Northern Iowa and two special schools. Brooklyn dairy farmer Craig Lang – currently the regent board president, also was denied reappointment to a second term by a 30-20 margin.

An affirmative vote of 34 senators is needed to meet the two-thirds majority needed for approval. Branstad indicated Thursday that the Iowa confirmation threshold should be a simple majority like the U.S. Senate, noting both Cramer and Lang won support from a majority of senators.

Asked about Vander Plaats’ call for a re-vote, Branstad told reporters “I don’t think it’s possible.”

“You know the rules and I know the rules. I don’t think that’s permitted under the rules,” the governor added.

According to Senate Rules, a reconsideration vote could have been scheduled if a senator who voted against Cramer on Monday had filed some paperwork by Tuesday night calling for another vote, but that didn’t happen.

Vander Plaats told reporters “there’s plenty of gray area” that he believed Gronstal and Branstad could use to find a remedy.

Sen. Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines, said Cramer was given a fair hearing in the Senate’s vetting process and was rejected.

“I think that we should flat out stay with our policy that once somebody is considered and rejected, that is final,” McCoy said. “There is no need to reconsider this nomination for any reason. The outcome would be absolutely the same.”

Copyright 2015 Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(4) Comments

  1. JanInWloo
    Report Abuse
    JanInWloo - April 11, 2013 3:15 pm
    He doesn't object to a religious litmus test. He just objects to them not applying HIS religious litmus test.
  2. BIL
    Report Abuse
    BIL - April 11, 2013 1:50 pm
  3. reojoe
    Report Abuse
    reojoe - April 11, 2013 1:45 pm
    fair enough, Bob. So, can we get a re-vote on the Supreme Court justices that were voted off a few years back?
  4. jason8887
    Report Abuse
    jason8887 - April 11, 2013 12:55 pm
    funny thing about religion... it's so vague that you can play it any way you want. Get over it, your guy lost. Why is a religious group pushing for this anyway? hasn't he ever heard of 'seperation of church and state'?
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick