That’s my guess as to the cause of all this nonsense:
Among the reforms are laws regarding taxes, guns, voting, police and schools and most seem, uh, poorly considered IMO.
The Des Moine Register reports:
As a non-Iowan, this looks like a huge leap, or at least a giant stride, into undesirable territory.
As an Iowan I kinda wish we could move away like so many have the last couple of decades. Maybe after my in-laws pass and if I could convince my kids to move we’d be outta here. Being Blue in a sea of Red sucks.
Kansas has been a constitutional carry state since 2015.
It strikes me that any law which must expressly be labeled “constitutional” is likely not. Seriously, what is “constitutional” supposed to mean here? Aren’t all laws supposed to be constitutional?
Well now you’re just being pedantic. 
The intention of constitutional carry states, is that there is no requirement of a permit, or a license, etc. to concealed carry, it’s is considered to be implicitly guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
Read “constitutional carry” as “your individual constitutionally guaranteed right to carry any weapon, including a nuke, on your person”.
Of course that formulation depends crucially on a fundamental misreading of the 2A, but that’s for another thread.
Trust me, no red-blooded, black dirt home-grown Iowan is jealous of anything Kansan. Dorothy of Oz is welcome to it.
What concerns me is that I think this is a national Republican push, just on a state-by-state basis. It’s all stuff to try and clamp down on what they saw as their biggest weakness: the fact that people were sympathetic to protesters.
I do think that some of the changes should be unconstitutional. But who knows with this Court.
This is, of course, not a position with which the Supreme Court has ever agreed.
If the Supreme Court ever takes it up, and it doesn’t go their way, the new term will be something like “Patriotic Carry” or “Christian Carry”, and the term “Constitutional Carry” will disappear as if it was never there at all.
Seriously, folks… check this out:
The quick version is that the very popular, long-serving top election official in Scott County, Roxanna Moritz (D) announced her resignation. The law allows for an appointed successor or a special election. The Republican head of the Republican-controlled Scott County Board of Supervisors issued this non-sensical statement on why a special election was not called and instead a Republican was simply appointed:
What the fuck?
My sense is that in past decades, states like Iowa tried to avoid going full-police-state in their laws out of a sense that they’d thereby lose businesses that otherwise might choose to re-locate there.
Apparently no red state worries about that anymore. If that’s the case, is it because many businesses are indifferent to the issues arising from operating in a state that okays the murder-by-car of peaceful protestors? Or is it that the states have simply given up on attracting business?
Businesses big enough for us to see the result directly only move interstate rarely.
And of course businesses are concerned about a lot more issues than anti-riot or anti-voter legislation.
If the collective net movement of people is towards states going authoritarian, business will follow after a lag. Not necessarily by moving, but simply by more businesses being created in areas of increasing population and shrinking in areas of decreasing population. Or equivalently by more branches of existing national or regional businesses.
E.g. more random folks will open Mom & Pop restaurants where headcount is growing and Denny’s will open more outlets there as well. Whether, e.g., GM decides to build a new plant there is a comparative drop in the bucket, albeit a drop that’s a lot easier to see than all those Denny’s.
LSLGuy–that all sounds accurate.
The only thing that would cause a largish business to decline to move to a state that okays murdering peaceful protestors with your car (for example), would be nationwide public outcry that’s loud and sustained enough to make them fear for their profits.
But otherwise, they’ll pay more attention to tax incentives than to the relative authoritarian-ness of the local laws, when making relocation decisions.