The gender balance requirement for Iowa’s decision-making bodies was repealed by Governor Kim Reynolds, who stated that the focus should be on appointing the most qualified individuals. Critics of the repeal argue that this move may result in fewer opportunities for women and that progress in representation does not mean discrimination no longer exists. Advocates for the requirement pointed out that despite some progress in achieving gender balance, disparities still exist and may worsen without the mandate.
Iowa was the first state to implement the gender balance requirement for boards and commissions over three decades ago, which was later extended to all levels of government in 2012. The law required a waiting period before considering applicants of any gender, with the goal of achieving gender parity. The repeal of this requirement means that officials are no longer obligated to prioritize gender balance in bodies such as the human rights commission or the licensing board for doctors. Similar laws in other states encouraging gender balance on boards and commissions are also facing legal challenges.
Supporters of the repeal in Iowa cited a case challenging the constitutionality of the gender balance mandate for the commission recommending judicial nominees to the governor. A federal judge ruled that the law did not provide sufficient evidence that it was compensating for discrimination as it did when first introduced in 1987. Governor Reynolds was joined by Chuck Hurley, the plaintiff in that case and vice president of the Family Leader, a conservative Christian organization, along with attorneys who represented him. The Pacific Legal Foundation, a national firm focused on challenging what it views as government overreach, has brought similar cases in other states.
The repeal of the gender balance requirement in Iowa reflects a national trend where conservative lawmakers are targeting diversity-promoting efforts and protections for historically marginalized groups, arguing for a merit-based approach instead. Critics of this trend warn that without measures like the gender balance requirement, disparities may worsen and opportunities for women may diminish. Despite some progress in achieving gender balance in Iowa’s decision-making bodies, advocates emphasize the importance of continued efforts to address discrimination and ensure equitable representation. The repeal of the requirement has implications for how boards and commissions in the state are appointed and may impact the overall diversity of these bodies.
