Opinion: Keep Iowa's gender balance law intact

The Iowa Senate is considering a bill, Senate File 136, that would eliminate Iowa’s gender balance law.This law requires that all state and local government boards and commissions be comprised equally of men and women, or have a majority of no more than one for boards with an odd number of members.

Iowa legislators should defeat this bill, because Iowa’s gender balance works.

Iowa adopted its gender balance requirement for state boards in 1987 and, in 2009, extended this requirement to county and city boards. Iowa’s is the only state has a law of this type. Just 12 other states recommend gender, or gender and racial diversity, on state boards only. A recent study by two scholars at Meredith College in North Carolina found that Iowa had the most state-level boards with at least one member of each gender represented, including those with recommendations only.

Similarly, since 2013, the percentage of gender-balanced boards has increased by 13% for municipalities and 12% for counties, to 61% and 62%, respectively. The percentage of women serving on local boards as members and chairs has also measurably increased. Yet taken together, women still fall short of parity as board members and leaders.

If Iowa drops its gender balance requirement, Iowa’s public boards will probably become less diverse and less representative than the communities they serve. Moreover, the state places many requirements on the composition of its boards and commissions. Examples include veteran status, profession, disability status, political party, geography, and even income level. If the gender balance law is repealed, then all demographic criteria are endangered, even if those criteria are put in place to ensure representation of key constituencies.

In addition, the gender balance law does not deny any willing applicant an opportunity to serve. Applicants need only to wait a short time until an opening for which they are eligible is available. The same can be said for partisanship or any other criterion.

Fourth, the legislative history of the gender balance law shows that its sponsors sought to ensure that public boards reflect the diversity of their constituents. Diversity is a public good. On the one hand, having a government that reflects the demographics of the community it serves increases its legitimacy, especially among members of under-represented groups. In addition, studies of decision making in business show that diverse groups — defined in any way that you can think of: race, gender, educational background, profession, age — are more productive than groups that are homogenous. Diverse groups actually reach more creative solutions faster than those that are not diverse.

Moreover, the gender balance law is good for men. Having men’s perspectives added to library, arts, and historic preservation boards is as important as having women’s voices present on zoning and taxation boards.

The gender balance law is not unduly burdensome to state or local governments, nor does it harm any potential applicant. The law has neither a reporting requirement nor sanctions for non compliance.

Finally, gender balance opponents might say, “We just want the most qualified person.” This implies that somehow, having gender balance — meaning more women — means that the women are not qualified. However, women now earn a majority of degrees at every level, from high school to Ph.D. They have made significant inroads into scores of previously male-dominated professions.

Qualified women are here in Iowa. Invite them to serve.

Karen M. Kedrowski and Carrie Ann Johnson are scholars who study women and politics. The statistics cited here can be found at https://cattcenter.iastate.edu/research/gender-balance-project.

This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Opinion: Keep Iowa's gender balance law for boards intact