Iowa justices find lawmakers protected by privilege

DES MOINES — Even though not explicitly stated, the Iowa Constitution protects state lawmakers from being required to produce documents during court proceedings, and that privilege extends to communications with third parties, the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled.

“Legislative privilege” is implied in multiple sections of the state constitution, and that privilege extends to communications with third parties — like lobbyists and constituents, for example — so long as the communication is related to the legislative process, the court ruled.

The ruling came Friday from a case in which the League of United Latin American Citizens had sought documents from a number of state lawmakers in the group’s challenge of the constitutionality of changes to Iowa’s elections laws.

A district court ruled that state lawmakers should produce some documents from LULAC’s request. But the Iowa Supreme Court in a unanimous decision overturned that lower court decision and quashed the subpoenas for the lawmakers’ documents.

The unanimous decision, written by Justice Dana Oxley, notes that the case presented the state Supreme Court’s first opportunity to address whether the Iowa Constitution supports legislative privilege. That issue is more clear federally and in other states whose constitutions have a speech or debate clause — which Iowa’s doesn’t she noted.

“We now hold that the Iowa Constitution contains a legislative privilege that protects legislators from compelled document production and that the privilege extends to communications with third parties where the communications relate directly to the legislative process of considering and enacting legislation,” Oxley wrote. “However, we need not, and therefore do not, decide whether the legislative privilege is absolute or qualified.”

  Buy Photo

The court ruled that the Iowa Constitution effectively pieces together legislative privilege in three places: by expressly calling for a separation of powers between the three branches of government, giving state lawmakers “a privilege from arrest during the session of the general assembly,” and protecting Iowans’ right “to make known their opinions to their representatives.”

Reaction to ruling

LULAC had requested documents from 11 Republican state lawmakers as the group sought to prove changes to the elections law — which shortened early voting times, constrained early voting options and eliminated absentee voting options — were designed to prevent or discourage minority populations from voting.

Sen. Jack Whitver, the Republican Senate majority leader from Grimes, praised the ruling as a protection of Iowans’ ability to communicate with their elected officials without fear of legal retribution.

“Iowans and organizations they support must have the freedom to engage with their elected officials on issues of personal importance to them without fear of public retribution from their opponents,” Whitver said in a statement emailed to The Gazette.

Joe Enriquez Henry, executive director of Iowa’s LULAC chapter, expressed disappointment in the court’s ruling and frustration with Statehouse Republicans’ changes to Iowa elections laws.

  Buy Photo

“While we are disappointed in the court’s decision to shield our elected representatives from discovery, their voter suppression laws speak loud and clear,” Henry said in a statement to The Gazette. “Our work continues, and we remain committed to protecting the right to vote in Iowa and specifically the rights of Latino voters in Iowa.”

Randy Evans, executive director of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council, said the ruling betrays government transparency. Evans suggested state lawmakers should bring themselves under the state’s open records law, noting that law applies to the executive branch of state government, including the governor’s office and other state offices and agencies.

“I understand the legal reasoning upon which the Supreme Court based its decision, but the people of Iowa should be troubled by the ramifications of this ruling and should be pushing their lawmakers to take corrective action,” Evans wrote in a statement to The Gazette. “The decision blocks the public from having access to any comments or promises or deals lawmakers make in their emails and letters as they hash out — or kill — proposed laws or existing laws. Voters are deprived of knowing what trade-offs their senators and representatives make or what ‘incentives’ they are offered.

“Secrecy merely invites public suspicion and distrust, and that is not good for respect and confidence in our government.”

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