950 N.W.2d 204
Iowa2020Background
- HF 2643 (2020) amended Iowa Code § 53.2: when an absentee ballot request lacks or has incorrect required ID info, county auditors must contact the applicant within 24 hours and are forbidden from using the voter-registration (I‑Voters) database to fill in missing data.
- Secretary of State mailed a uniform, highlighted absentee‑ballot‑request form to all registered voters and encouraged providing phone/email for follow‑up.
- LULAC and Majority Forward sued to block enforcement, seeking a temporary (interlocutory) injunction; district court denied; Iowa Supreme Court (per curiam) affirmed the denial.
- Majority applied the Anderson–Burdick balancing test, found the law imposes only a minimal, nondiscriminatory burden and furthers election‑integrity interests; plaintiffs offered no evidence the statute would actually prevent voters from voting by absentee ballot.
- A dissent (joined by two justices) argued the back‑end contact requirement, in the pandemic and given heavy last‑minute demand, will cause multi‑day delays likely to disenfranchise many and thus would justify an injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden on the right to vote (Anderson–Burdick) | Back‑end rule forces auditors into a slower contact/mail process causing multi‑day delays that will prevent many from receiving ballots in time (severe burden) | Requirement is a modest, nondiscriminatory verification step that protects absentee integrity and merely requires applicants to complete forms or respond to contact | Held: burden is not severe; balancing favors upholding statute; plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on merits; injunction denied |
| Facial challenge standard | Statute will operate to disenfranchise voters in this election context (as‑applied concerns incorporated into facial claim) | Plaintiffs mounted a facial challenge without showing unconstitutionality in all applications; challenge speculative | Held: facial challenge fails; plaintiffs did not show likelihood of success on a facial claim |
| Equal protection | Different county auditor practices (no statewide deadline for follow‑up cadence) will lead to unequal treatment of similarly situated voters | Statute is evenhanded and does not classify or discriminate; process variation among auditors is insufficient to show an equal protection violation | Held: plaintiffs showed no likelihood of success on equal protection claim |
| Procedural due process | Delay created by the new cure process (esp. during COVID‑19 surge) risks practical disenfranchisement and denies meaningful notice/opportunity to be heard | System provides notice (form language), auditors must attempt contact, tracking tools and in‑person options remain; burden minimal | Held: due process claim unlikely to succeed on this record; injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (Anderson balancing test for election‑law burdens)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (framework refining level of scrutiny based on burden severity)
- Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (upholding modest election‑integrity measures; weighing burdens vs. interests)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (reluctance to change election rules close to an election)
- Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (caution against broad facial invalidation absent necessity)
- Luse v. Wray, 254 N.W.2d 324 (Iowa 1977) (Iowa precedent recognizing legislature may regulate absentee procedures to prevent fraud)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (standard and difficulty of successful facial challenges)
- Max 100 L.C. v. Iowa Realty Co., 621 N.W.2d 178 (Iowa 2001) (temporary injunction requires likelihood of success on the merits)