Judge won’t dismiss lawsuit over law requiring districts for supervisors in three Iowa counties

IOWA CITY — A Johnson County District Court judge has denied the state’s motion 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 their supervisors countywide.

Recommended Reading

Lawsuit: Iowa law requiring county supervisor districts is unconstitutional

Chief District Court Judge Lars Anderson also denied the plaintiffs’ petition for temporary injunctive relief to stop implementation of the new law. All three counties are currently in the process of establishing supervisor districts.

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

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

Prior to the adoption of Senate File 75 last 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 way voters in the three affected counties can be involved in deciding whether the supervisors are elected through at-large or district systems.

Motion to dismiss denied

The motion to dismiss, filed by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, argued 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 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.

The court’s ruling agreed that the law does not impede on the fundamental right to vote, however it states that the case does not meet the threshold required to dismiss.

“While the matter may be appropriate for disposition on summary judgment, the Court is not persuaded that it is the exceptional type of case that is appropriate for dismissal at the pre-answer stage of litigation. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be denied,” the ruling states.

Petition for temporary injunctive relief denied

The court denied the request for temporary injunctive relief and cited that elimination of the petitioning process in the three affected counties does not impact the right to vote in general elections.

“Plaintiffs have not, at this stage of litigation, shown a likelihood that they will succeed on their due process or equal protection claims, or that Senate File 75 is unconstitutional,” the court’s ruling states.

The plaintiffs have argued 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.

The ruling also calls out that the bill was signed into law by Reynolds in April 2025, but the plaintiffs waited until October to file their lawsuit.

“The status quo is the law that is in effect and the actions Defendants already have taken to comply with the law. Plaintiffs’ proposal would throw these measures into disarray and create further problems in preparing for and administering elections. Plaintiffs will not be irreparably injured if injunctive relief is not granted because they still maintain their fundamental right to vote,” the court’s ruling states.

Next Steps

Johnson County is in the midst of the redistricting process, having approved a district representation plan. All five seats on the Johnson County Board of Supervisors will be on the ballot in November.

In order to create staggered terms, some supervisor districts will be assigned two-year terms and others will be assigned four-year terms. Those terms will begin after next fall’s election.

The terms will be decided through a random selection process set to take place Jan. 14 at 9 a.m. a work session of the board of supervisors.

With the motion to dismiss and petition for injunctive relief denied, a non-jury trial is set to begin March 3, 2027.

Comments: megan.woolard@thegazette.com

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