Proposed election law changes in Iowa: the good, the bad and the ugly

Last week was “funnel week” at the Iowa Statehouse — the deadline for legislation to pass out of committee in order to stay eligible for consideration. One of the bills surviving the funnel was House Study Bill 697, a bill which, if enacted, would implement another round of broad changes to Iowa’s election process.

I’ll pause here to remind readers that I am also employed on demand by my home county as an election official to help lead early voting before most elections. Accordingly, I have thoughts on HSB 697 — thoughts that are, for clarity’s sake, my own and not those of my county elections department.

Some parts of HSB 697 seem pretty good. Some parts seem kind of bad. One in particular is just plain ugly.

Good: Early voting, earlier

HSB 697 would increase the early voting period from 20 to 22 days. Without extending it too far — there is such a thing as voting too early — two extra days pad that time frame slightly, even after losing a day on the back end for mail ballots.

Bad: Absentee ballot deadline bumped up

Three years ago, an absentee ballot returned through the mail required a postmark or postal service bar code from no later than the day before the election in order to count. A ballot bearing either of those could arrive as late as noon on the Monday after the election and still count.

Legislation in 2021 did away with the postmark/bar code provision and replaced it with a hard deadline for receipt of absentee ballots. Instead of the day preceding the election, absentee ballots currently can be received at the auditor’s office as late as the closing of the polls on Election Day.

Under HSB 697, that hard deadline for absentee ballot receipt would revert to the day before the election while still prohibiting postmark allowances. It’s a change I urge against, as its primary — and perhaps only — result would be the disqualification of ballots cast in good faith before polling places close on Election Day, ballots which would have counted only months earlier.

I am a staunch supporter of reasonable election security measures. I can’t think of any ways in which election integrity would be bolstered by this change to a degree that warrants it.

Good: Ranked choice voting banned

I could go into detail — and have, previously — explaining why I hate the concept of ranked choice voting. The overarching reason is that ranked choice voting (RCV,) also called instant runoff voting (IRV,) creates a confusing process that risks disenfranchising voters. Not everyone is going to grasp how to properly mark a ballot that looks a bit reminiscent of a Powerball ticket with a whole grid of bubbles needing filled out just so. Explaining it to puzzled voters would also require a lot of extra time and attention from election officials, potentially hindering the voting process.

As I wrote in May 2022, state law does not prescribe a process for ranked choice voting, so no voting jurisdiction can actually utilize it. But given that RCV/IRV is an organized movement in many states including Iowa, an explicit prohibition helps close that door. I’d be happy to keep it shut.

Bad: Ballot dropboxes banned

HSB 697 repeals legislation enacted only three years ago allowing for a single drop box at each county auditor’s office for the secure, no-contact return of absentee ballots at all hours. The 2021 legislation codified some of the guidance issued by Secretary of State Paul Pate in September 2020 which prohibited county auditors from placing drop boxes in multiple locations around the community such as grocery stores.

In terms of election security, an argument can be made against ballot drop boxes in places not constantly monitored by the county. That argument does not, however, extend to a single receptacle placed right outside the auditor’s office and subject to strict security requirements, including round-the-clock video surveillance.

Unless multiple instances of election fraud have been spotted and directly attributed to drop boxes, no sufficient reason exists to remove them in the name of preventing the same. Legislators shouldn’t strike the part of Iowa Code that allows them. They should strike the part of this bill that would ban them.

Good: New voter verification program

Iowa’s withdrawal from the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC,) a multistate cooperative designed for the exchange of information for states to verify their voters’ eligibility, is not as controversial as some have intimated. It wasn’t fueled by any particular extreme right-wing election fraud conspiracy theories — Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate and his staff have actually gone to considerable lengths to reject denialist myths about election security.

Instead, the departure of other states made the program less valuable overall, to the point where the benefits of participation were no longer enough to justify meeting its conditions, improvements to which were rejected by other ERIC member states. Now that ties have been cut, Iowa needs a new program to verify voter eligibility. HSB 697 greenlights efforts to create a program more conducive to Iowa’s election integrity goals. Thumbs-up.

Good: Previous legal issues can’t disqualify federal candidates

HSB 697 exempts candidates for federal office from being disqualified from the ballot for past felony convictions or other “infamous crimes.” Should we call that the Trump Clause? Sure, if you want. Former President Donald Trump, who is all but certain to be the Republican nominee for president this November, is facing a mountain of felony charges, a number of which could result in a conviction before Election Day.

“It takes quite a lot of nerve to call a bill an election integrity bill, when the point of the bill is to let felons run for office,” said Rep. Adam Zabner, a freshman Democrat from Iowa City, during a hearing for HSB 697. “And particularly someone like Donald Trump, who has so little integrity.”

Zabner’s remarks about “felons” as federal candidates may have been aimed at Trump, but they attack every person with a felony conviction who has put that part of their lives behind them. That’s a large group — of which Trump is not (yet) a member.

Does Zabner believe that letting “felons run for office” is a threat to “election integrity?” He wouldn’t be the first politician to contradict the position of his own party. Nor would he be the first to let hatred for Trump fool him into betraying his liberal principles. But Zabner’s lapse in judgment shouldn’t be suffered by those ready to reclaim the full duties and privileges of citizenship.

About 45,000 Iowans with felony convictions had their voting rights, including the right to run for public office, restored by Gov. Kim Reynolds via Executive Order 7 (EO7) on Aug. 5, 2020. Since then, the order has been reissued daily to apply to eligible ex-felons whose sentences were discharged after EO7 was signed.

Currently it is only via EO7 that eligible people with felony convictions can run for any office in Iowa, unless they follow the older, more cumbersome process of applying for (and receiving) a restoration of those rights or a presidential pardon. Statehouse Republicans do support an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to automatically restore voting rights to most ex-felons, but a consensus on the specifics has yet to be reached and an amendment wouldn’t take effect until after the 2028 presidential election at the earliest.

The exemption in HSB 697 would ensure that any federal candidate in Iowa with a felony conviction would not be dependent on Reynolds’ executive order should she leave office for any reason and her successor declines to continue it. That would make an OK stopgap until legislators — and voters — approve that constitutional amendment.

Ugly: Eligibility challenges limited to legal sufficiency

HSB 697 also limits legal objections to a federal candidate’s eligibility to whether their nomination papers meet the requirements in Iowa Code or whether their residency, age or citizenship meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

This is undoubtedly a Trump Clause, proposed for good reason: Some states are actively working to keep Trump off the ballot by finding him guilty of insurrection and declaring him disqualified from holding office.

By limiting candidate challenges to their legal sufficiency, Iowa would signal its rejection of these extrajudicial actions that other states have chosen to take. That’s neither a good nor a bad thing. It’s flat-out ugly.

It’s ugly because legislation like this isn’t just merited — it’s warranted. It’s ugly because we’ve reached the point where we need to clarify that extrajudicial actions like those won’t fly in the state of Iowa. It’s ugly because some jurisdictions have already chosen to punish Trump for a crime of which he’s not only never been convicted — he’s never been charged. That’s right — of Donald Trump’s many felony indictments, none are for insurrection. None.

It’s ugly because hundreds of thousands of American voters will be disenfranchised from exercising their rights if those extrajudicial actions prevail.

And it is a disgustingly ugly reality that so many citizens whose rights and freedoms thrive under the legal framework of “innocent until proven guilty” would gladly see a person robbed of their due process out of nothing more than politically motivated hatred.

Bill includes even more changes

Believe it or not, my little analysis doesn’t cover the whole range of tweaks to Iowa’s election system that HSB 697 proposes. Your friendly neighborhood opinion columnist/election official is hoping that the bill will not be a done deal by the time we pick up this conversation next week. Hopefully legislation with this much for Iowans to talk about is given enough time for legislators to talk about it, too.

Comments: 319-398-8266; althea.cole@thegazette.com

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are those of its author and do not represent the views or opinions of the Linn County Auditor’s Office.