Iowa’s Top Court Upholds Ballot Removal of 3rd-Party Candidates

An Iowa panel correctly removed three Libertarian candidates from 2024 ballots because they did not follow the alternative procedure via which they chose to qualify, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled on Sept. 11.
Under Iowa law, congressional candidates can qualify for primary elections by filing petitions with at least 1,726 signatures. If a recognized political party such as the Libertarian Party of Iowa has no candidate for a primary, it can nominate a candidate for that primary at a congressional district convention.
The alternative path has several requirements, including the requirement that the party provide names of delegates to the county auditor. The Libertarian Party has acknowledged failing to meet that requirement but said it substantially complied with the law.
The State Objection Panel, which consists of Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, Attorney General Brenna Bird, and Auditor Rob Sand, voted in August for challengers to the Libertarian Party candidates, finding in a 2–1 decision that the party improperly held its caucuses and county conventions on the same day and lacked the delegate names.
Sand said in a dissent that the panel ignored the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment and that it should have kept the candidates on the ballot.
The Libertarian candidates asked the courts to review the finding. Polk County District Court Judge Michael Huppert over the weekend upheld the state panel’s decision.
Iowa Supreme Court justices said in the per curiam opinion, with Thomas Waterman abstaining, that the Libertarian Party candidates were wrong when they argued that challengers, who are themselves candidates in the congressional districts, did not have standing to challenge them being on the ballot. Because the challengers are residents of the districts and have the right to vote, they do have standing, justices said.
Justices also shot down the position that the candidates should remain on the ballot due to the Libertarian Party being in substantial compliance with the law. Justices said that the law requires strict compliance because it does not expressly say substantial compliance is acceptable, unlike some other laws.
The court also said that removing the candidates does not infringe on First Amendment rights. U.S. Supreme Court rulings have upheld laws governing access to ballots, they said, and the panel’s ruling “does not affect the Libertarian Party’s ability to convey its message to the voters of Iowa, to make endorsements, to associate only with individuals it wants to associate with, or even to determine its own governance structure.”
Cutler encouraged voters to write in the candidates’ names.