A bill for an act relating to the use of an electronic device in a voice-activated or hands-free mode while driving, providing penalties, and making penalties applicable.(See HF 827.)
House Study Bill 64 substantially expands Iowa’s distracted-driving law. Current law generally prohibits only the hand-held use of an electronic communication device to write, send, or view electronic messages while driving; this bill broadens the prohibition to cover any “use” of an electronic device while driving, while separately defining “use” to include holding, viewing, or manipulating the device. It also defines “electronic device” broadly to include cellphones, tablets, gaming devices, and similar portable devices, while excluding devices integrated into the vehicle such as built-in navigation systems entered before the vehicle is in motion.
The bill creates a limited safe harbor for voice-activated or hands-free use, but only for functions that do not involve video content, video calls, streaming, gaming data, or reading messages/notifications. It also allows device use when the vehicle is fully stopped off the roadway, or as far from the traveled portion as practicable if it cannot be fully removed. Several exceptions remain for public safety personnel, emergency health care situations, emergency reporting, certain transit, utility, agricultural, amateur radio, transportation network company, and fleet-management uses.
HSB64 changes the enforcement and penalty structure in several related code sections. A violation of the new electronic-device rule becomes a simple misdemeanor and a scheduled violation with a $100 fine, up from the current $45 scheduled fine for texting-while-driving violations. The bill also makes these violations moving violations, which means they can count toward administrative license suspension and habitual offender determinations, and it updates related provisions governing minors’ licenses, preemption of local ordinances, and serious-injury or death-by-vehicle enhancements. It also requires officers to issue warning memoranda instead of citations for violations occurring before January 1, 2026.
The general sentiment in the available record appears strongly favorable in committee: the House Transportation Committee report shows 20 yeas and 0 nays. The bill’s framing suggests a broad public-safety rationale, aiming to reduce distracted driving by moving from a narrow texting ban to a wider prohibition on handheld device use while driving.
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth of the ban and the scope of exceptions. The bill reaches beyond texting to nearly all handheld device use, which could raise concerns about enforceability and everyday driver behavior, while the numerous carve-outs for emergency, utility, transit, agricultural, and commercial uses may draw scrutiny over fairness and consistency. Another notable issue is the transition period: the bill delays citation-based enforcement until 2026, using warnings first, which suggests some concern about immediate compliance and implementation.
The bill would amend multiple sections of the Iowa Code governing driver conduct, license restrictions, penalties, habitual offender status, local ordinance preemption, and vehicular homicide/serious-injury provisions. Most importantly, it would replace the current texting-specific prohibition in section 321.276 with a broader ban on using an electronic device while driving, while also revising related sections so that this broader rule applies consistently to younger drivers and other license categories. It would also increase the scheduled fine, make violations moving violations, and align enhanced penalties and related enforcement provisions with the new definition of prohibited conduct.
The available voting history indicates clear support, with the House Transportation Committee reporting the bill 20-0. No committee transcript is available, but the bill’s structure and explanation indicate a consensus-oriented public safety measure focused on reducing distracted driving. The inclusion of a warning period before citations begin suggests the sponsors also anticipated implementation concerns and sought a phased rollout.
The likely areas of disagreement are the scope of the prohibition and the number of exceptions. Opponents or skeptics may argue that banning all handheld electronic-device use while driving goes beyond texting and could be difficult to enforce consistently, especially given the broad definitions of “electronic device” and “use.” Others may question the carve-outs for specific occupations and activities, such as utility work, transit operations, farming equipment, amateur radio, and fleet management, as potentially uneven or overly complex. Supporters, by contrast, are likely to emphasize the safety benefits of a broader distracted-driving ban and the need for uniform statewide rules.