Iowa Senate Bill SJR9

Iowa 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Filed/Introduced: 8/7/26
• Introduced: 2/27/25
• Engrossed: 3/19/25

Caption

A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa relating to the right of an accused to confront children and other witnesses. (Formerly SSB 1057.)

Summary

Senate Joint Resolution 9 proposes a constitutional amendment to Article I of the Iowa Constitution to allow the right of an accused person to confront witnesses to be limited by law in certain cases. The amendment specifically applies to children under 18 and to witnesses with a mental illness, intellectual disability, or other developmental disability. In practical terms, the resolution is aimed at giving the legislature authority to create procedures that better protect vulnerable witnesses in criminal proceedings. Because this is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment, it does not itself change statutory law immediately. Instead, it places the proposed amendment before the next General Assembly for further consideration and requires publication before that election, as part of Iowa’s constitutional amendment process. If ultimately approved through the required legislative steps, it would create explicit constitutional authority for laws that limit face-to-face confrontation rights in the specified circumstances.

Impact

The resolution would amend the Iowa Constitution by adding a new section to Article I, creating an express exception to the accused’s confrontation right for child witnesses and witnesses with certain disabilities. Its immediate legal effect is procedural: it advances a proposed amendment and triggers publication and referral to the next General Assembly. If adopted through the constitutional amendment process, it would give lawmakers clearer authority to enact or sustain statutes and courtroom procedures designed to protect vulnerable witnesses while balancing defendants’ rights.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have broad support and little visible opposition in the recorded votes. It passed the Senate Judiciary Report unanimously, was adopted by the Senate without dissent, and then passed the House with a strong bipartisan majority despite a small number of no votes. The voting pattern suggests general agreement with the goal of protecting children and other vulnerable witnesses in criminal cases.

Contention

The main point of contention is the constitutional balance between protecting vulnerable witnesses and preserving an accused person’s right to confront witnesses against them. Supporters appear to favor giving the state more flexibility to shield children and witnesses with mental or developmental disabilities from direct confrontation in court. Any opposition likely centers on concerns that limiting confrontation rights could weaken defendants’ constitutional protections, though the available vote totals indicate that such concerns did not prevent passage.