With the future of the Iowa Values Fund in question, partisan bickering among members of the Iowa Legislature has already begun in force.

Republican leaders view the ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court against Gov. Tom Vilsack’s line-item vetoes as a vindication, according to a statement issued by House Speaker Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City.

“The Court agreed with the Legislature on every point in our interpretation of the Constitution on how an item veto can be used,” Rants said. “They adopted our test for what constitutes an appropriations bill. The court made several strong statements that to do otherwise would have vested too much power in the executive branch. We did not raise this argument, we did not ask for this result.”

A similar sentiment was announced by Jeff Lamberti, R-Ankeny, who called the ruling a victory for the people of Iowa.

“This is the second time we’ve taken the governor to court for exceeding his authority and this is the second time we’ve won the case,” Lamberti said in a statement. “The Court’s unanimous decision sends a loud and clear message that the power to create laws lies squarely in the hands of the Legislature.”

Vilsack had hoped to use the fund as a lure to bring businesses into the state when it was first conceived, boosting the stagnant economy that has caused recent cuts to numerous state appropriations.

A joint statement from Democratic leaders in the Legislature harshly chastised its members for endangering efforts to perk up Iowa’s economy. Written by House Democratic Leader Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque, and Senate Democratic Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, accused Republican lawmakers of using “logrolling” techniques to get legislation passed.

“Because of political game-playing by Republican leaders, the Iowa Values Fund has been jeopardized,” said the statement from the Democratic leaders. “We must do whatever it takes to ensure that the Fund continues to function and offer hope of economic growth in Iowa.”

But Rants said disabling the Iowa Values Fund had never been a Republican priority, and the responsibility for the loss of the two bills lay solely on the shoulders of Vilsack.

“We did not seek to invalidate the bill — we wanted all provisions of it restored,” Rants wrote. “Responsibility lies squarely with the governor and his legal counsel for their issuance of an unconstitutional item veto.”

Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, chided Republican legislators for sacrificing the fund.

“What the Republican victory at the Supreme Court does is a disaster for economic development in the state of Iowa,” Quirmbach said. “The Republican lawsuit could now cost state and local economies thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions in investments. The Republican victory cast doubt on the validity of the economic development deals that were announced in February that meant about 600 jobs and $200 million in investments in Ames alone.”

The Legislature’s lawsuit, spearheaded by Rants and Sen. Stewart Iverson, R-Dows, sprung from Vilsack’s June 2003 line-item vetoes of several sections of House File 692, a bill which contained part of the $500 million development project, “Developing Iowa Values Fund.”

The vetoed sections included tax and regulatory reforms sought by the Legislature, which Vilsack told the Legislature must remain “revenue neutral,” taking nothing from the state’s pool of funds. He didn’t explicitly promise a veto then.

The two bills responsible for the formation of the Values Fund, House File 683 and House File 692, were passed by the Legislature during an extra session on June 4, 2003, part of a push by Vilsack to take action on economic development within the state. However, the governor returned the bills to the Secretary of State with several of the Legislature’s initiatives excluded via a line-item veto, saying the tax code revisions did not meet the revenue neutral standard he’d set for the laws, and that a regulatory measure would make it more difficult for citizens to access worker’s compensation or find restitution if injured by unsafe products.

The court’s opinion, written by Justice Mark S. Cady, outlined the decision to reverse the district court’s ruling and declare both bills null.

“[B]y operation of our constitution, the Governor effectively vetoed the entirety of [House File] 692 by failing to approve the whole of the bill and return it …” Cady wrote. “Ultimately, the result of this case is to render things as though no provision of [House File] 692 passed into law.”