Iowa justices vow fast ruling as Libertarian congressional hopefuls make case to be on ballot

DES MOINES — Iowa Supreme Court justices, during oral arguments Tuesday, probed with pointed questions the lawyers representing three Libertarian candidates for Congress who believe they are unjustly in danger of losing their spots on Iowa ballots for the Nov. 5 election.

Justices took turns challenging lawyers’ arguments that the State Objections Panel erred or acted outside its authority last month when it upheld citizen objections to the Libertarians’ candidacies.

At the conclusion of nearly 90 minutes of oral arguments, Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Susan Christensen said the court plans to deliver its ruling before 11:59 p.m. Wednesday, which is a deadline for the Iowa Secretary of State to certify ballots so they can be printed for the coming election. Justice Thomas Waterman recused himself from the case, without giving a reason, and did not participate.

  Buy Photo

If the Supreme Court upholds the state panel’s ruling, the three Libertarian candidates — Nicholas Gluba in Eastern Iowa’s 1st District, Marco Battaglia in Central Iowa’s 3rd District and Charles Aldrich in Western Iowa’s 4th District — will not appear on ballots.

All three candidates have said if they lose their spot on the ballot, they will continue to campaign and ask Iowans to cast write-in votes.

What the two sides’ arguments were

During Tuesday’s oral arguments in the Iowa Supreme Court chambers, lawyers for the Libertarian candidates argued the state laws cited in the objections apply only to primary elections, and that the Libertarian Party’s nominating procedures should not be disqualified since officials substantially complied with state law — conducting party business just three hours sooner than the law allows.

  Buy Photo

At the heart of the issue is the fact that Iowa Libertarians conducted their precinct caucuses and county conventions on the same evening in January, even though state law says the terms of delegates elected at the precinct caucuses do not begin until the next day.

Lawyers for the Libertarians also argued that while the Libertarian Party of Iowa made mistakes when conducting its nominating procedures, because of the technical nature of the errors the action taken should have allowed the party to remedy its mistakes, rather than remove the party’s candidates from the ballot.

“The fundamental question before this court is does a failure to wait 181 minutes after caucus to begin (the county) convention justify kicking Libertarian candidates off the ballot, violating Iowa voters’ constitutional rights to political opportunity?” Des Moines lawyer Jennifer De Kock argued to the court. “We believe that petitioners and precedence say no. The risk to our elections from allowing this level of interference by a panel without authority to adjudicate it is too great and will lead to the exact result that the state claims to want to prevent, which is destabilizing our elections.”

  Buy Photo

Previously in the case, lawyers for the Libertarian candidates also argued that the Iowans who raised the objections did not have legal standing, that the state panel exceeded its authority in ruling based on those objections and that the panel’s ruling violates the Libertarian Party’s free speech rights.

During Tuesday’s arguments, Supreme Court justices pressed lawyers representing the State Objections Panel and the Iowans who filed objections to the Libertarians’ candidacies about whether strict compliance with state law was required and whether the candidates should be punished for mistakes made by their party organization.

Justice Christopher McDonald posed the hypothetical question of whether candidates would be disqualified if their nominating papers were not stapled, since state law requires those papers to be “securely fastened together.”

  Buy Photo

“When the rule gets applied, it seems harsh. I get that,” said Des Moines lawyer Alan Ostergren, who represents the objectors. “It seems harsh when you’re a day late to file a lawsuit and it gets dismissed. It seems harsh if you show up at the Secretary of State with 1,725 signatures (state law requires 1,726 signatures for U.S. House candidates) and you don’t qualify for the ballot. Those rules seem harsh.

“But these rules and why strict compliance is necessary is they’re like an insurance policy for the elections process,” he argued. “They’re so elections officials, when they have to make decisions on a quick timetable, know that there’s regularity in the process.”

  Buy Photo

How it happened

Shortly after no Libertarian congressional candidates ran in the state’s primary election in June, party leaders held a nominating convention to nominate Gluba, Battaglia and Aldrich to run in the general election.

Objections to those nominations were raised by Iowa Republicans living in each district, who argued the Libertarian Party of Iowa failed to follow nominating procedures required by state law. The State Objections Panel met Aug. 28 and by a 2-1 vote upheld the objections, effectively removing the Libertarians from the ballot.

The Libertarians challenged the ruling in state court, but a Polk County District Judge upheld the ruling. The Libertarians promptly appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, leading to Tuesday’s oral arguments.

Iowa’s 1st and 3rd congressional districts, currently represented by Republicans U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn, respectively, are projected to be closely contested.

In the 1st District, which includes Johnson County, Democrat Christina Bohannan is challenging Miller-Meeks, and in the 3rd District, Democrat Lanon Baccam is challenging Nunn. National elections forecasters rate the two elections as leaning Republican or a tossup.

Comments: (515) 355-1300, erin.murphy@thegazette.com

Get the latest Iowa politics and government coverage each morning in the On Iowa Politics newsletter.