DES MOINES, Iowa — Three Libertarian candidates running for Congress in Iowa will not be named on the ballot this November, the state Supreme Court said Wednesday, an outcome that could benefit Republicans in two competitive districts.
The high court offered a quick and final decision following Tuesday’s oral arguments, already more than a week after the deadline for state officials to certify the names of nominees before ballots can be printed.
Iowans affiliated with the Republican Party filed challenges against the three candidates, alleging that the Libertarian Party of Iowa failed to follow state law on the procedure for nominating their candidates. A three-member panel of state elected officials, comprised of two Republicans and one Democrat, ruled 2-1 in agreement with the challengers.
The Libertarian candidates filed a court challenge. A Polk County judge issued a decision Saturday saying the state objection panel’s decision was appropriate, and the candidates immediately appealed to the high court.
The Iowa Supreme Court on Wednesday affirmed the lower court's decision.
Independent or third-party candidates usually have little chance of winning, but 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.”
One of Iowa’s four congressional races was decided by a razor-thin margin in 2022. Republican Zach Nunn, who was challenging incumbent Democrat Cindy Axne, won by less than a percentage point. There was not a third-party candidate.
Nunn is facing a competitive race against Democrat Lanon Baccam in the 3rd Congressional District, as is incumbent Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks against Democrat Christina Bohannan in the 1st District.
Representing the challengers, conservative attorney Alan Ostergren argued that the candidates were improperly nominated at the party's convention because the delegates at the initial county conventions had not yet started their terms. State law says delegates start their terms the day after they are selected at precinct caucuses, but the Libertarian Party held county conventions the same day.
Secretary of State Paul Pate and Attorney General Brenna Bird, two Republicans on the state elections panel, agreed. The lone dissent on the panel came from State Auditor Rob Sand, a Democrat who accused his colleagues of political bias against the Libertarian candidates.
Before the Iowa Supreme Court, the state argued that enforcement of election law as written protects election integrity and transparency, and these laws ensure that the delegates actually have the authority to speak on behalf of voters and prevent conflicts that could promote more than one nominee.
Ostergren added that the laws may seem “harsh” when enforced, but they provide regularity in the process of gaining access to the ballot.
“If you want to be on the general election ballot and have every eligible Iowan who can participate in that election show up and decide you among other people, you got to follow those rules,” he said.
Lawyers for the candidates argued that the technicality does not invalidate the selection of the candidates — undisputed within the party — and warrants an infraction on the organization, not the candidates’ removal from the ballot.
Ultimately, Libertarian nominees Nicholas Gluba in the 1st District, Marco Battaglia in the 3rd District and Charles Aldrich in the 4th District will not be named on the general election ballots.
Battaglia said after Tuesday's hearing that the challenges were an “unfair attack" and that he's done everything he could to make sure “things were done the right way."
“I will stay in until the end of the race regardless. I plan to do that no matter what happened today or yesterday or tomorrow,” he said, saying he'd run a write-in campaign. “That's the alternative they leave me with, but I'm fine with that, if that's how they decide.”
