State seeks dismissal of lawsuit in Johnson County over mandated supervisor districts

IOWA CITY — The state is asking Johnson County District Court to dismiss a lawsuit that alleges a new law requiring three Iowa counties to change how their supervisors are elected is unconstitutional.

Senate File 75 requires Iowa counties that are home to one of Iowa’s three regent universities to elect their county supervisors by districts, rather than at-large. All three counties — Johnson, Black Hawk and Story — currently have Democrat-leaning boards and elect supervisors countywide.

The plaintiffs in the case are a group of 14 voters from the three affected counties. Through their attorney — James Larew of Larew Law Office in Iowa City — they argue that the law limits the powers of voters in the three counties.

The motion to dismiss, submitted by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, argues that the law does not impede on any voter rights and that the state has a legitimate regulatory interest in differentiating counties that host a regents-led university.

The defendants in the lawsuit include Gov. Kim Reynolds, Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, and the boards of supervisors in Johnson, Story and Black Hawk counties.

‘It is difficult to conceive of a purported injury’

Prior to the adoption of Senate File 75 earlier this year, each of Iowa’s 99 counties could decide how its supervisors were elected, either through a decision made by the elected board of supervisors or through a voter-led petition.

The new law limits the ways voters in the three affected counties can be involved in deciding whether the supervisors are elected through at-large or district systems.

The motion to dismiss argues that there is no constitutional right to a petitioning process and also calls out that each of the affected counties’ representation plans had previously been decided by its board of supervisors and that no voter-led petition has ever been filed by any of the plaintiffs.

“Thus, the only injury Plaintiffs allege is that Senate File 75 revokes their ability to hypothetically petition for a different representation plan sometime in the future … It is difficult to conceive of a purported injury that is less substantial in its character and magnitude than the one Plaintiffs assert,” the motion to dismiss states.

Republican legislators who backed the bill, which was signed into law by Reynolds in April, have said it’s necessary to give more voice to rural Iowans in counties where college students are eligible to vote.

“SF 75, as is clear from its text, singling out Regents universities and from the advocacy of the bill’s supporters in the legislature, by mandating a particular representation plan for these three counties, only, is motivated by an animus against students and also in favor of those who reside at rural addresses. Neither of these purposes, each of which diminishes or enhances the electoral power of one group of voters over another, is constitutionally viable,” the plaintiffs’ petition states.

The motion to dismiss argues that the court has never recognized students or urban voters as a protected class, so Senate File 75 does not impede on any fundamental voter rights.

The defense argues that “legislative intent” by individual legislators should not be taken into account by the court, referencing Iowa Supreme Court precedents, and that the state has a reasonable interest in regulating counties that host universities differently.

“Given the large influx of short-term residents in counties hosting regents institutions, the Legislature has a substantial interest in protecting the interests of various constituencies in these counties — such as long-term residents, students, or rural voters — from dilution in at large elections,” the motion to dismiss states.

The plaintiffs argue that the law gives more power to rural voters in the counties with Regents-led universities, but does not give that same power to rural voters in other counties with private universities and colleges.

“SF 75 stands for the propositions that student voices are somehow less legitimate or less worthy of representation than nonstudent voices, and that people who reside in those Regents university counties, by virtue of their geographical-associational status, alone, are uniquely not deserving of, or are too irresponsible to handle, the choice in election plan that voters in Iowa’s ninety-six other counties are fully able to make,” the petition states.

Johnson County compliance efforts are ongoing

While the legal battle is ongoing, Johnson County is actively working to establish supervisor districts in an effort to comply with SF 75.

Johnson County’s Temporary Redistricting Commission voted Monday to adopt a supervisor district plan that splits the county into five districts and was proposed by the state’s non-partisan Legislative Services Agency.

The commission’s adoption of the plan serves as a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, which must vote to approve or reject the plan.

Should the supervisors choose to reject the plan, they must give written reasons for the rejection. LSA would then prepare a second plan for the board’s consideration.

All five seats on the Johnson County Board of Supervisors will be on the ballot in November 2026. Voters will be able to vote for a single member of the board based on where they live.

The Johnson County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote on the LSA plan at its meeting on Jan. 8.

Comments: megan.woolard@thegazette.com

Get a weekly roundup of Johnson County news by signing up for my Johnson County Update newsletter.