DES MOINES, Iowa — Three Libertarian candidates seeking U.S. House seats in Iowa will not appear on the ballot this November following a judge’s ruling Saturday, upholding a state election panel’s decision.
The ruling came in an appeal by the candidates after the State Objection Panel, composed of one Democratic and two Republican elected officials, ruled 2-1 that the Libertarian candidates should be removed from the ballot on a technicality.
The panel agreed with several Republican Party officials who argued that the Libertarian Party failed to follow state law when it nominated the candidates at its party convention, which was held on the same day as precinct caucuses where the candidates were selected. State law says the term of convention delegates begins the day after the caucuses.
That means the Libertarian candidates were not nominated at valid county conventions, conservative attorney Alan Ostergren argued.
Polk County District Judge Michael Huppert agreed and rejected the candidates’ arguments that the state panel had no authority to strike them from the ballot. He found that the state law is “mandatory in nature and requires strict compliance.”
“The panel concluded correctly by requiring this level of compliance,” Huppert wrote.
The panel’s two Republican members, Attorney General Brenna Bird and Secretary of State Paul Pate, sided with the challengers, saying the parties are obligated to follow the rules governing candidate nominations. The lone dissent on the three-person panel came from State Auditor Rob Sand, a Democrat, who accused his colleagues of political bias.
Independent or third-party candidates usually have little chance of winning. Still, the question of how their margin of support could change the outcome of the race vexes Democratic and Republican leaders alike.
“In general, the parties are worried about minor parties that might take votes from them,” said Stephen Medvic, professor of government at Franklin & Marshall College. “It’s a pretty straightforward calculus. The Libertarian is more likely to take votes from the Republican.”
Challenges to third-party candidates are as common as the election cycle, Medvic said, and especially at the presidential level, they often occur in swing states where a fraction of the vote for a third-party candidate could matter most.
One of Iowa’s four congressional races was decided by a razor-thin margin in 2022. Republican Zach Nunn, who challenged incumbent Democrat Cindy Axne, won by less than a percentage point. There was not a third-party candidate.
The Libertarian Party of Iowa reached major party status in 2022, when their nominee for governor earned support from more than 2% of voters.
The state’s attorney told the judge at a hearing Thursday that the state’s regulations for major parties are reasonable and non-discriminatory to keep the nominating process organized and transparent, arguing that Iowa’s interest in keeping the candidates off the ballot is to maintain election integrity.
The chair of the Libertarian Party of Iowa, Jules Cutler, told the judge that this was “bullying” to keep the “small kid on the block” off the ballot. Cutler has called the party’s technical mistakes embarrassing but argued they should not invalidate the nominations.
The judge’s ruling means that the names of Libertarian nominees Nicholas Gluba in the 1st District, Marco Battaglia in the 3rd District and Charles Aldrich in the 4th District will not be included — for now — on the ballot.
Ballots were supposed to be certified by Pate’s office on Sep. 3, but the judge ordered certification to be put on hold until the issue could be heard in court. An appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court is still possible, further delaying the certification and printing of ballots.
In a recent ruling, a judge has decided to exclude Libertarian candidates from the Congressional ballot in a move that has sparked controversy and debate among political circles. The decision comes after a legal challenge was brought forth by the Democratic and Republican parties, arguing that the Libertarian candidates did not meet the necessary requirements to be included on the ballot.
The judge’s ruling has raised concerns about the fairness and inclusivity of the electoral process, as many believe that all political parties should have equal opportunity to participate in elections. Supporters of the Libertarian candidates argue that their exclusion is a violation of their rights to free speech and political expression.
The Libertarian Party, which advocates for limited government intervention and individual freedoms, has gained traction in recent years as an alternative to the two-party system dominated by Democrats and Republicans. Their exclusion from the ballot could have significant implications for the upcoming Congressional election, as voters may be left with fewer choices on the ballot.
Critics of the judge’s ruling argue that it sets a dangerous precedent for future elections, potentially limiting the diversity of voices and ideas that are represented in government. They believe that all political parties, regardless of their size or popularity, should have the opportunity to participate in the democratic process.
On the other hand, supporters of the ruling argue that it is necessary to uphold the integrity of the electoral process and ensure that all candidates meet the necessary requirements to be included on the ballot. They believe that allowing candidates who do not meet these requirements could undermine the legitimacy of the election results.
Overall, the exclusion of Libertarian candidates from the Congressional ballot has sparked a heated debate about the fairness and inclusivity of the electoral process. As the election approaches, it remains to be seen how this ruling will impact the outcome and shape of Congress in the coming years.
