UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Iowa Supreme Court upholds removal of Libertarian Party candidates from November ballot

by Rox Laird | September 20, 2024

Instead of choosing candidates for the U.S. House in June party primaries, three Libertarian Party congressional candidates were nominated at the party’s state convention by delegates elected at county conventions.

Six eligible voters in those three congressional districts filed formal objections with the Secretary of State claiming the Libertarian Party failed to properly follow the procedure outlined in Iowa Code section 43.94 for electing county convention delegates. Whereas the Code says county convention delegates’ terms of office do not begin until the day following their election at a precinct caucus, the Libertarians held precinct caucuses and county conventions on the same day.

The objections to the eligibility of the Libertarian candidates to appear on the November ballot were sustained by a state panel that hears such challenges, which was upheld by the Polk County District Court and affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court.

As a result, a technical error was enough to disqualify the three Libertarian candidates from appearing on the November ballot, and while the party argued that is unfair for a number of reasons, the Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision issued Sept. 11, disagreed. Justice Thomas Waterman took no part in consideration or decision of case.

“We are not persuaded that strict compliance with section 43.94 is fundamentally unfair.” the Court said. The three Libertarian candidates for Congress “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.”

While the three Libertarian candidates did not dispute they failed to comply with the statute’s procedural requirements, they raised a number of objections on other grounds, including challenging the standing of the objectors and violation of the candidates’ First Amendment rights. The Court rejected them all.

As for standing, while a person may not have standing for judicial review, the Court said, he or she may be a party to an agency proceeding as prescribed by statute. In this case, under Iowa Code section 43.24(1)(a), “Objections to the legal sufficiency of a nomination petition or certificate of nomination filed or issued under this chapter or to the eligibility of a candidate may be filed in writing by any person who would have the right to vote for the candidate for the office in question.” That broad language gives the three objectors standing, the Court said.

On the First Amendment argument, the Court said the Libertarian candidates’ right of access to the ballot was not infringed in this case because the only effect of the state panel’s decision is to require the party to go through a formal nominating process with clearly separate precinct caucuses and county conventions.

“State law specifically requires that the county convention delegates elected at precinct caucuses assume their duties as delegates no earlier than the next day,” the Court said. “This short time delay imposes a modest burden by requiring truly separate precinct caucuses and county conventions.”

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25