Iowa

Iowa Supreme Court affirms decision keeping Libertarian candidates off ballot • Iowa Capital Dispatch

Published

1 year ago

September 11, 2024

Iowa Supreme Court affirms decision keeping Libertarian candidates off ballot • Iowa Capital Dispatch

Libertarian candidates running for office in three of Iowa’s congressional districts will not appear on the 2024 general election ballot, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The expedited ruling came just one day after the justices heard oral arguments on the case about whether candidates Nicholas Gluba in 1st Congressional District, Marco Battaglia in the 3rd District and Charles Aldrich in the 4th District would be put back on the ballot. The Libertarian congressional candidates were removed in late August by the State Objections Panel in a 2-1 decision over the state party’s failure to conduct its nominating process in accordance with state law.

Iowa voters, several of whom hold GOP leadership positions in the state, challenged the three candidates’ nominations on the basis that the Libertarian Party of Iowa held its county conventions too early for delegates to take action. The state Libertarian Party, which regained major party status in 2022, held both its precinct caucuses and county conventions Jan. 15.

Iowa Code states convention delegates elected at precinct caucuses do not officially take the position until the following day, meaning these conventions — as well as the June 8 special nominating conventions — were improper, the objectors argued.

The state panel sided with the voters’ objections, removing the three congressional candidates from the ballot. Gluba, Battaglia and Aldrich asked for judicial review of the decision — after a district court judge upheld the panel’s decision Saturday, the case moved to the state Supreme Court.

In Tuesday arguments, attorneys representing the Libertarian candidates said the county conventions were not conducted in full accordance with state law, but that the process was done with “substantial” compliance that should meet the state’s standards for getting candidates onto the ballot. However, attorneys representing the panel and objecting voters said “strict” compliance with Iowa laws should be enforced to ensure “regularity” in the nominating and election processes.

The Iowa Supreme Court upheld the district court’s decision in the Wednesday ruling. The state Supreme Court decision stood with the interpretation that “strict” compliance is required with the Iowa Code involving partisan nominations.

“Gluba, Battaglia, and Aldrich could have qualified for the November general election ballot by filing nomination petitions with signatures like the other political party candidates,” justices wrote in the decision. “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.”

Jennifer DeKock, the lawyer representing Battaglia, argued Tuesday that Libertarian county conventions were conducted just over three hours — 181 minutes — prior to when the process would have complied with state law, beginning at midnight.

“Does the failure to wait 181 minutes after caucus to begin convention justify kicking Libertarian candidates off the ballot, and violating Iowa voters’ constitutional rights to political opportunity?” DeKock asked.

The justices state that the argument that the rule requiring precinct caucuses and county conventions are held on separate days is “arbitrary and hyper-technical” could apply to many of the rules governing elections.

“Why require forty-seven signatures from at least half of the counties?” the opinion stated. “Why should that matter if a candidate has several thousand signatures and the entire district elects the representative? Gluba, Battaglia, and Aldrich do not contend that the two-day requirement would have been too burdensome for the Libertarian Party to meet; it just wasn’t met here.”

The decision came quickly by request of the Iowa Secretary of State’s office, which must certify ballots for the upcoming Nov. 5 election. While the ballots were initially supposed to be certified Sept. 3, the district court judge overseeing the Libertarians’ court challenge granted a temporary injunction on finalizing the ballots.

With the Iowa Supreme Court decision, the state office will be able to move forward with finalizing the candidates appearing on the 2024 general election ballots in time for Sept. 21, when ballots must be certified and ready for overseas and military voters.

While the candidates will not appear on state ballots, all three congressional candidates plan to move forward with write-in campaigns for the general election, Battaglia and Aldrich told reporters Tuesday.

Source link

Click to comment

Iowa

Iowa Great Lakes businessman Butch Parks dies at 81

Published

3 hours ago

January 9, 2026

Press Room

Iowa Great Lakes businessman Butch Parks dies at 81

SPIRIT LAKE, Iowa (KTIV) – The Iowa Great Lakes community is remembering Leo “Butch” Parks, a longtime lakes-area businessman and founder of Parks Marina.

He died Tuesday, Jan. 6, at the age of 81.

Parks established the marina on East Lake Okoboji in 1983, growing it from a small fishing boat operation into a business with marinas, sales, service, rentals, storage, and popular destinations like the Barefoot Bar.

Parks and his wife, Debbie, also owned Okoboji Boat Works for 23 years.

Funeral services are set for Friday, Jan. 16, at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Spirit Lake. It will be followed by a celebration of life at Snapper’s restaurant in Okoboji that evening.

Want to get the latest news and weather from Siouxland’s News Source? Follow these links to download our KTIV News app and our First Alert Weather app.

Source link

Iowa

Iowa woman accused of pandering for prostitution and harassment after incidents at Casey’s and a daycare

Published

15 hours ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

Iowa woman accused of pandering for prostitution and harassment after incidents at Casey’s and a daycare

AURELIA, Iowa (KTIV) – A Northwest Iowa woman is facing charges of harassment and pandering for prostitution after two incidents took place in December 2025.

Forty-seven-year-old Kristal Miller of Odebolt was taken into custody on an arrest warrant and faces three charges: one count of pandering for prostitution and two counts of first-degree harassment, according to court documents.

Kristal Miller(Cherokee County Jail)

The charges stem from two separate incidents that took place on Thursday, Dec. 18. 2025.

According to court documents, at 6:15 a.m., Miller reportedly went to the Casey’s General Store, located at 100 Pearl St. in Aurelia. Documents state Miller approached an employee and customers, requesting money from them.

Authorities state Miller claimed she was wanted by the FBI and told people, if anyone called the police, “she would kill them.”

During this encounter, she also allegedly asked an employee to remove the string from her hooded sweatshirt. Documents state when the employee refused this request, she threatened to strangle them.

That same day at 7 a.m., Miller reportedly approached a female employee outside an Aurelia daycare and asked them for money.

Court documents stated Miller suggested the unnamed employee leave her boyfriend. Miller reportedly told the employee, if she did, then she and Miller would both be paid.

Authorities say when she was told no by the employee, Miller became upset and started yelling at them.

Miller also allegedly threatened to “steal her car” and ”take her away to her guys to start a new life.”

She was booked into the Cherokee County Jail on a cash-only bond of $5,000. A preliminary hearing has been scheduled in Cherokee for Friday, Jan. 9, at 10 a.m.

Want to get the latest news and weather from Siouxland’s News Source? Follow these links to download our KTIV News app and our First Alert Weather app.

Source link

Iowa

Iowa law on police appeals ‘constitutionally vacuous,’ prosecutor says

Published

1 day ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

Iowa law on police appeals ‘constitutionally vacuous,’ prosecutor says

The Iowa Supreme Court is reviewing a 2024 law that allows law enforcement officers to appeal their placement on a Brady-Giglio list.
A dispute between Jefferson County’s attorney and sheriff led to the sheriff being placed on the list, which identifies officers with credibility issues.
The county attorney argues the law is unconstitutional because it lets judges interfere with a prosecutor’s duty to disclose evidence to defendants.

A feud between two Jefferson County officials has landed before the Iowa Supreme Court, which must decide if a 2024 addition to Iowa’s Rights of Peace Officers law is unconstitutional.

Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding is asking the state’s high court to overturn what he calls the “constitutionally vacuous” law, which allows officers to petition the courts to be removed from their county’s Brady-Giglio list.

Named for two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the lists compiled by prosecutors identify law enforcement officers and others whose credibility is in question, and it can provide grounds for questioning their testimony in court.

After a dispute over a case involving a sheriff’s deputy’s use of force, Moulding in 2024 notified Jefferson County Sheriff Bart Richmond he was placing him on the Brady-Giglio list. Richmond petitioned a court to reverse Moulding’s decision, and a district judge did, finding Richmond’s actions in connection with the case, while unprofessional, did not bring his honesty or credibility into question.

In his appeal, Moulding argues that’s not up to the court to decide, and that the law lets judges improperly intrude on prosecutors’ professional judgment and, ultimately, defendants’ rights.

“The practical real application of (the 2024 law) is to create a Kafkaesque scenario where a criminal defendant could face the prospect of criminal charges involving a State witness who is so lacking in credibility that the State’s attorney has qualms about even calling him to testify, but is prevented from disclosure,” Moulding wrote. “Such a situation is unconscionable, and underlines the constitutional vacuousness of the statute itself.”

The court has not yet scheduled arguments for the case, which could have impacts far beyond Jefferson County. Attorney Charles Gribble, representing Richmond, said this is just one of three Iowa Brady-Giglio appeals he personally is involved in.

What is a Brady-Giglio list?

Under the Fifth Amendment, criminal defendants are entitled to due process of law. In Brady v. Maryland in 1963 and in subsequent cases the U.S. Supreme Court held that due process requires a prosecutor to disclose any known exculpatory evidence to the defense. That includes anything giving rise to doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses, including law enforcement officers.

In 2022, Iowa formalized that process by mandating prosecuting agencies maintain a Brady-Giglio list of officers whose credibility can be questioned due to past dishonesty or other misconduct. The law requires agencies to notify officers when they are being put on a list and allows them to seek reconsideration.

Being placed on a list can damage or destroy an officer’s career, as prosecutors generally will decline to call them as witnesses or to bring charges that would depend on their testimony.

2024 law gives courts a role in Brady-Giglio lists

Iowa’s 2024 law went beyond requiring officers be notified of their placement on a Brady-Giglio list by giving them the right to appeal to a district court if their prosecuting agency refuses to take them off a list. The law requires judges to confidentially review evidence and allows them to affirm, modify or reverse an officer’s Brady-Giglio listing “as justice may require.”

In less than two years, courts have reversed local prosecutors on several Brady-Giglio placements, including a messy Henry County dispute in which prosecutors accused a sheriff’s deputy of making misleading statements on a search warrant application.

What happened in Jefferson County?

The lawsuit before the Iowa Supreme Court involves an April 2024 traffic stop by a Jefferson County deputy. As laid out in a subsequent memo by Moulding, video recordings show the deputy handling the driver roughly and, when the man complains, telling him “I can do whatever I want” and, “You’re not going to tell me what I can and can’t do. … You’re going to learn what respect is, young man.”

After learning about the incident, Moulding wrote, he repeatedly emailed Richmond, asking if the deputy’s actions had violated any county policies. Richmond did not respond. Concerned about possible litigation against the county, Moulding then asked another county to conduct an investigation. While the details are disputed, Moulding accuses Richmond of stonewalling both his office and the outside investigators and instructing his subordinates also not to cooperate.

“A county sheriff ordering deputies not to cooperate with an inquiry into a deputy’s use of force represents a fundamental lapse in judgment and raised serious concerns regarding the Sheriff’s honesty, candor and ethics as a law enforcement official,” Moulding wrote.

He scheduled a meeting that Richmond did not attend and then placed him on the county’s Brady-Giglio list. In an emailed statement, Moulding called the entire matter “unfortunate.”

“Frankly, I am shocked that instead of attempting to address this matter with my office cooperatively, the Sheriff instead decided to stonewall an investigation, stonewall the Brady-Giglio investigation, and then take this matter to court instead of sitting down and addressing the matter like an adult and an elected official,” he said.

In a letter, Moulding warned Richmond that he would no longer be called as a law enforcement witness and advised him to limit his involvement with criminal investigations, as “your engagement in such activities could likely negatively impact the outcomes in court.”

Judge disagrees with sheriff’s placement on list

After Moulding denied Richmond’s request for reconsideration, Richmond filed suit. In February 2025, Judge Jeffrey Farrell ruled Richmond should be removed from the list.

Farrell’s order criticized both parties, finding that Moulding had failed to comply with some procedural elements of the law but that Richmond could have avoided the whole situation with “basic and professional” responses to Moulding’s emails. Nonetheless, he found Richmond’s actions did not demonstrate dishonesty or deceit that would justify placement on a Brady list.

“This is not a case in which an officer lied to a court, was convicted of a crime, manufactured or destroyed evidence, or committed some other act that would serve as the basis for impeachment in any criminal case,” Farrell wrote. “Game-playing the county attorney is not the standard of professionalism that Iowans expect of our elected county sheriffs,” he added, but does not constitute grounds for a Brady-Giglio listing.

Prosecutor appeals, argues law is unconstitutional

In his appeal, Moulding does not address Farrell’s factual findings, instead asking the court only to decide whether the law is constitutional.

“The most glaring constitutional defect in (the 2024 law) is that it impedes a criminal Defendant’s substantive and procedural due processes of law, and right to a fair trial,” the appeal says. “These fundamental rights constitute the bedrock raisons d’être for the entire body of Brady-Giglio jurisprudence in the first place.”

Iowa appears to be the only state with a law allowing officers to sue to be removed from a Brad-Giglio list, but Moulding cites a recent federal lawsuit where a judge rejected a South Dakota officer’s attempt to get removed from a list, finding the request “in essence, asks this Court to require a State’s Attorney to violate the constitution.” He further argues that the law violates the constitutional separation of powers and is “so poorly drafted as to be unenforceable and void for vagueness.”

Sheriff’s attorney says single lapse of judgment is not grounds for listing

Gribble, Richmond’s attorney, argued in his Supreme Court brief that the law is constitutional and that the sheriff’s actions fall well short of Brady-Giglio standards.

“Under (the 2024 law), placement on the Brady-Giglio list results not from a single lapse of judgment but rather from repeated, sustained, intentional and egregious acts over a period of time,” he wrote. “Thus, while a singular act of bad judgement may undermine a police officer’s credibility in a particular case, placement on the Brady-Giglio list places a permanent and unreviewable scarlet letter on the officer that he/she is unlikely to be able to ever overcome.”

He also suggests that a court order removing an officer from a list “does not in any way alter the prosecuting attorney’s duty to provide exculpatory evidence in all cases.” In an interview, he argued there should be a legal distinction between prosecutors disclosing concerns about an officer’s conduct in the case in which it occurred, and doing so in every future case involving them.

“To me, that’s what Brady-Giglio is for, not for occasional or first-time wrongs, even if established of a police officer, but those that have a history of that sort of thing,” he said.

The Supreme Court has not yet set a date for arguments in the case.

William Morris covers courts for the Des Moines Register. He can be contacted at wrmorris2@registermedia.com or 715-573-8166.

Source link