Iowa Supreme Court: Libertarian candidates for Congress will not be on ballot

DES MOINES — Three Libertarian candidates for Congress will not appear on Iowa ballots in the Nov. 5 elections after the Iowa Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a state panel’s ruling that disqualified them over the way they were nominated.

The Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion affirmed a lower-court ruling that upheld an earlier decision by the State Objections Panel. The three bodies agreed the Libertarian Party of Iowa failed to follow party organizing and candidate nominating steps required in state law, thus disqualifying the candidacies of Nicholas Gluba in Eastern Iowa’s 1st Congressional District, Marco Battaglia in Central Iowa’s 3rd District and Charles Aldrich in Western Iowa’s 4th District.

All three candidates have pledged to continue campaigning and ask voters to write them in when casting ballots.

  Buy Photo

What the Iowa Supreme Court ruling said

In delivering its opinion, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected arguments on behalf of the Libertarian candidates that the objectors did not have legal standing, that the panel did not have the authority to consider challenges to the candidates’ nominating documents, that the state law section cited in the objections only pertains to primary elections and that the Libertarian candidates should have been allowed to correct the party’s errors because the infractions were “technical.”

“The election laws may not be the model of clarity. Still, a common sense reading of the term ‘legal sufficiency’ supports the Panel’s and the District Court’s rulings,” the Supreme Court’s ruling states. “By contrast, as acknowledged at oral argument, the approach advocated by Gluba, Battaglia, and Aldrich would leave a gap in our election laws. The Panel would have no ability to resolve, for example, a dispute between two candidates both claiming to have received a nomination for the same office at their party’s convention.”

Justices also rejected arguments that the Libertarians’ procedural infractions were minor and thus their “substantial compliance” should have been sufficient. The court said that “strict compliance” should be expected of the candidates and parties.

“We are not persuaded that strict compliance with (Iowa state elections law) is fundamentally unfair,” the court wrote. “Gluba, Battaglia, and Aldrich could have qualified for the November general election ballot by filing nomination petitions with signatures like the other political party candidates. They relied instead on an alternative procedure afforded by Iowa law. Having done so, they had to be in compliance with that procedure. In sum, like the District Court, we find that strict compliance was required and the Libertarian Party did not comply.”

State Auditor Rob Sand, the only member of the State Objections Panel who voted to keep the Libertarians on the ballot, and who previously worked in the Iowa Attorney General’s Office, took issue with the court’s opinion that “strict compliance” is required.

“Requiring ‘strict compliance’ with election laws written by a two-party system will no doubt smother opposition and prop up that same broken system,” he said in a statement.

The Supreme Court also rejected Libertarians’ arguments that the panel’s ruling overstepped its authority by dictating how a political party conducts its business.

Justice Thomas Waterman recused himself from the case, without giving a reason, and did not participate in the case.

Legal dispute moved quickly through courts

The ruling ended an expedited legal consideration of the Libertarians’ candidacies, just two weeks after the State Objections Panel met and voted to disqualify them.

Iowa ballots cannot be printed until they are certified by the Iowa Secretary of State, a process that was paused by a court-ordered injunction while the case was considered. Meantime, federal law requires ballots to be mailed to overseas military voters no later than 45 days before Election Day, which is Sept. 21.

A spokeswoman for the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office said personnel planned to wait for the court’s ruling Wednesday and promptly certify ballots once it was delivered.

District Court Judge Michael Huppert and Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Susan Christensen acknowledged the time crunch created by the legal dispute, and conducted court proceedings on an unusually rapid timeline.

  Buy Photo

How the case started

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 Nov. 5 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.

Two Republicans, Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate and Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, voted to uphold the objections and disqualify the Libertarian candidates from the ballot. Sand, a Democrat, cast the dissenting vote.

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, which heard oral arguments Tuesday.

Legal arguments in previous hearings

During Tuesday’s oral arguments to the Supreme Court, 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.

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 caucuses do not begin until the next day.

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

Lawyers for the State Objections Panel and the Iowans who raised the objections argued that state law must be followed to the letter to ensure Iowa’s elections feature integrity and transparency, that there is nothing unfair about the state requirements that the Libertarian Party of Iowa failed to meet, and that they should be held to the same standard as other major political parties.

Decision could impact close elections

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.

Download: 241426_1EDAD7B7EDB36.pdf