Iowa Supreme Court allows open records lawsuit against Gov. Kim Reynolds to continue

DES MOINES — The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday decided that a lawsuit accusing Gov. Kim Reynolds of withholding records in violation of Iowa’s open record laws can continue, siding with a group of journalists who argue Reynolds broke the law by not turning over records in a timely fashion.

Reynolds and staff members were sued in 2021 by journalists Laura Belin, Clark Kauffman and Randy Evans, as well as their media and nonprofit organizations. The journalists accused Reynolds of violating the law requiring government entities to turn over public records, pointing to delays between five and 18 months in fulfilling multiple records requests.

The Governor’s Office turned over the records in January 2022, a month after the lawsuit was filed. Because the requests were fulfilled, lawyers for Reynolds argued the case should be dismissed. They also argued the justices cannot decide whether the governor’s office delayed in providing the records, as that amounted to a “nonjusticiable political question.”

But the plaintiffs argued that Reynolds had not turned over all of the records by redacting some documents. In addition, they argued they still were able to sue over an “unlawful delay” in providing the records.

In an opinion written by Justice David May and joined by all other participating justices, the Supreme Court affirmed the latter argument and said that extensive delay of a request amounts to refusal, violating Iowa’s open records laws. The case was sent back to the district court to decide.

Reynolds’ office also argued the court was not able to decide on whether it was late in delivering the records because that would be a political question of how the governor’s staff should spend its time, violating the separation of powers.

But to that, the court said the basis for judging whether the governor refused to provide documents is how the office behaved outwardly, rather than the office’s internal processes.

“It should not depend on political questions, like whether the Governor properly allocated resources when staffing her office,” May wrote. “And it should not depend on potentially privileged information, like the details of how the Governor was spending her time, or what she discussed with her lawyers.”

ACLU: Decision sets standards for government

The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, which represented the journalists, called the ruling a victory for transparency and democracy in Iowa.

Thomas Story, an ACLU lawyer, said the ruling would set a precedent for other government organizations dealing with records requests going forward.

"The court went out of its way to really set standards for government to follow moving forward," he said. "... The impact of this moving forward is hopefully we see government agencies acknowledge and diligently follow their obligations under the open records request."

Randy Evans, the executive director of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council and one of the plaintiffs, praised the court in upholding the open records law and making clear that a delayed response can amount to a refusal.

“No other custodian of government records in Iowa would be allowed to sidestep the requirements of the public records law for a year and a half without legal consequences.”

Reynolds cites pandemic

In a statement Friday, Reynolds said the COVID-19 pandemic shifted her office’s priorities away from public records requests, which led to the delays.

“During that time, there was an unprecedented number of open records requests and many of those went unfulfilled for a period,” she said. “While we disagree that this lawsuit should continue, my office has eliminated the backlog of open records requests and is committed to upholding our responsibility to respond to any new requests in a timely manner.”

Iowa Capitol Press Association President Erin Murphy, The Gazette’s Des Moines Bureau chief, said in a statement the ruling is a victory for transparency and government access.

“The court’s ruling affirms the state law that declares government officials must respond to requests for certain records in a timely fashion,” he stated. “As the court says, condoning an unlimited delay in government response would hamper the free and open examination of public records.”

Comments: cmccullough@qctimes.com