IA-03 poll tests messages against Sarah Trone Garriott, for Zach Nunn
Read the questions (and Laura's fact check)
This original reporting and analysis first appeared at Bleeding Heartland and is shared here as part of the Iowa Writers Collaborative. For regular emails linking to all recent Bleeding Heartland articles and commentary, subscribe to the free Evening Heartland newsletter.
A poll in the field this week previews attack lines Republicans may use against State Senator Sarah Trone Garriott, if she becomes the Democratic nominee in Iowa’s third Congressional district. The same poll tests positive messages about the incumbent, U.S. Representative Zach Nunn.
It’s not clear who commissioned the survey, but the question wording points to either Nunn’s campaign or some GOP-aligned group that plans to support Nunn’s re-election through independent expenditures.
The questions enclosed below are taken verbatim from a text version of the poll. I don’t know whether some voters in the third district are being surveyed by phone; some political polls are conducted entirely by text, while others use multiple methods to reach respondents. UPDATE: A source confirms there is a telephone version of this poll.
I fact-checked the claims about each candidate. According to the respondent who provided copies of the questions to me, this poll did not test any messages about two other Democrats seeking the nomination in IA-03: State Representative Jennifer Konfrst and Xavier Carrigan. That suggests whoever commissioned the poll expects Trone Garriott, who has led the Democratic field in fundraising, to win the June primary. UPDATE: Konfrst ended her campaign and endorsed Trone Garriott on January 26.
A quick reminder: although you may feel angry when you see or hear inaccurate or biased claims about Democratic candidates, it’s better not to click away or hang up. Take screenshots or detailed notes, or record the phone call, and share the questionnaire with me. (I won’t publish your name.)
A MIX OF TRUE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS ABOUT TRONE GARRIOTT
The poll tested twelve messages about the potential Democratic challenger. “If you knew each of the following were true about Sarah Trone Garriott, please indicate if it would make you MORE or LESS likely to vote for her for Congress? If it wouldn’t affect your vote or it’s not believable, just indicate that.”
For each question, respondents could choose one of the following options:
Much More Likely
Somewhat More Likely
Somewhat Less Likely
Much Less Likely
No Impact
Not Believable
I haven’t seen many polls offer the “not believable” option. Before you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on mail, digital, radio, or television advertising pushing an attack, it’s a good idea to find out whether voters would find your claim credible.
A tenuous link to a COVID-era loan
“Sarah Trone Garriott is the Coordinator of Interfaith Engagement at the Des Moines Area Religious Council, who took a $164,712 PPP taxpayer-funded loan during COVID even though the council’s assets increased by $2.5 million in 2020.”
That is Trone Garriott’s day job. I doubt she was the decision-maker on whether the organization would apply for a Paycheck Protection Program loan, as did thousands of businesses and nonprofits during the pandemic.
As for DMARC’s increased “assets,” the organization was in the middle of a capital campaign at that time, with plans to buy and renovate a larger building to accommodate the growing number of people using its food pantry.
Transgender issues
“Sarah Trone Garriott voted against a bill to require students to participate in the sport aligned with their biological sex and voted against another bill that would prohibit gender transition procedures for minors, many of which permanently sterilize children.”
A similar question appears later in the survey: “Sarah Trone Garriott opposed a measure that would have required students to use school bathrooms matching their biological sex.”
Trone Garriott did vote against the 2022 transgender sports ban, the 2023 ban on gender-affirming care for minors, and the 2023 school “bathroom bill.” Republicans spent heavily on ads highlighting anti-trans messages during her 2024 re-election campaign in Iowa Senate district 14.
Messages about immigration
Three questions echo familiar Republican talking points related to immigration.
“Sarah Trone Garriott voted against making illegal immigration a crime.”
Like every other Iowa Senate Democrat, Trone Garriott voted against a 2024 bill that would make “illegal reentry” a state crime for immigrants who had previously been deported or removed from the U.S., or had been denied admission. That law, known as Senate File 2340, is on hold pending federal litigation.
“Sarah Trone-Garriott gave $25,900 to the Iowa Democratic Party whose platform calls for abolishing ICE and allowing undocumented immigrants to register vehicles and obtain driver’s licenses.”
It’s common for Iowa legislators to transfer some campaign funds to the state Democratic or Republican party. When you consider that Trone Garriott’s state Senate campaigns raised hundreds of thousands of dollars during the 2020 and 2022 election cycles, and more than three-quarters of a million during the 2024 cycle, $25,900 is not a large amount.
The Iowa Democratic Party’s 2024 platform does call for abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, and supports “Undocumented immigrant vehicle registration and driver’s licenses after testing.” Candidates and elected officials are not bound by the party platform, and few if any Iowa Democrats agree with all 903 of the document’s expressed positions. Candidates and elected officials also play no role in writing the platform; that is done by platform committees and eventually adopted by state convention delegates.
“Sarah Trone Garriott voted against requiring the state registrar to annually check Iowa’s voter registration records against those of other states to identify ineligible voters and cancel such registrations, even after 277 confirmed noncitizens were found on Iowa’s voter rolls ahead of the 2024 election.”
Like other Senate Democrats, Trone Garriott did vote against a wide-ranging election bill in 2025, which included additional “voter verification” procedures. She was an outspoken critic of Secretary of State Paul Pate’s last-minute effort in October 2024 to challenge some ballots, using an inaccurate list of suspected non-citizens. Trone Garriott had constituents whose 2024 general election ballots were not counted, even though the voters were naturalized citizens.
Abortion
“Sarah Trone Garriott cosponsored a bill to allow Iowa taxpayer money to be spent on abortions.”
I don’t remember any proposal resembling this and couldn’t find anything matching that description when I searched the Iowa legislative website for bills Trone Garriott has cosponsored.
In 2023, all sixteen Iowa Senate Democrats cosponsored a bill on Medicaid reimbursement for maternal health related services. That bill didn’t mention abortion, but one part referred to “treatment of conditions which may complicate pregnancy.” Perhaps that is what Republicans would hang their hat on, if they use this attack line.
Many Iowa GOP candidates have falsely claimed their Democratic opponents support abortion for any reason up to birth.
Drugs
This was a new one for me: “Sarah Trone Garriott gave $25,900 to the Iowa Democratic Party whose platform backs government-backed open-air drug dens.” Sounds scary!
The party’s 2024 platform—which was not drafted by candidates and is not binding for them—does have a “mental health and addictions” section. One line supports “Supervised injection sites.”
Sex education
“Sarah Trone Garriott cosponsored a bill in the Iowa Legislature requiring sex education for kindergarteners.”
I couldn’t find any bill related to sex education or human development curriculum for young elementary school students. The question implies the Democrat supports giving young children graphic details about sex. In reality, experts recommend that parents begin “sex education conversations” very early, to help toddlers and other young children understand consent and their bodies in an age-appropriate way.
Medicaid work requirements
“Sarah Trone Garriott voted against a state bill which proposed able-bodied adults work just 20 hours a week to receive Medicaid in Iowa.”
Like every other Iowa Democratic lawmaker, Trone Garriott voted against the 2025 bill that required “at least 80 hours of work each month” for Iowans in the state’s Medicaid expansion program. A long list of medical, public health, social service, and religious organizations opposed that bill, arguing it would lead to eligible Iowans being dropped from the rolls, and that exceptions left out many people who would be unable to work those hours. Also, the policy would strain hospitals as more uninsured people seek care in emergency rooms.
Crime
Two questions stem from Trone Garriott’s vote against an expansive 2021 bill on crime and policing.
“Sarah Trone Garriott voted against the Back The Blue Bill which increased penalties for assaulting law enforcement, health care providers, correctional staff, or emergency personnel.”
“Sarah Trone Garriott voted against legislation that would criminalize protesters obstructing public roadways and increase penalties for rioting.”
Almost every Democrat in the Iowa House or Senate voted against Senate File 342, not because they were against punishing those who assault law enforcement, but because the law would disproportionately impact people of color and could chill protected forms of speech and assembly.
Republicans funded many television and radio ads in 2024 that portrayed Trone Garriott as “radical” and falsely claimed she voted to “let cities defund the police and allow rioters to destroy our communities.”
PRO-NUNN MESSAGES HIGHLIGHT LOWERING TAXES AND COSTS
The survey tested eight messages about the Republican incumbent: “If you knew each of the following were true about Zach Nunn, please indicate if it would make you MORE or LESS likely to vote for him for Congress? If it wouldn’t affect your vote or it’s not believable, just indicate that.” The options were the same as for the statements about Trone Garriott:
Much More Likely
Somewhat More Likely
Somewhat Less Likely
Much Less Likely
No Impact
Not Believable
Several questions refer to the “Working Families Tax Cut,” which is now the preferred Republican shorthand for the budget reconciliation measure originally dubbed the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.”
A false claim about banning stock trades in Congress
“Zach Nunn voted for the Working Families Tax Cut, which bans members of Congress from trading individual stocks to ensure they are not using their position as a public servant to get rich.”
That’s a lie. The budget reconciliation measure did not regulate stock trading by members of Congress.
Nunn has co-sponsored several bills that would prohibit members of the U.S. House or Senate from buying or selling individual stocks, but none of those have come up for a vote on the House floor.
Hedge funds and housing
President Donald Trump recently promised to prevent institutional investors from buying single-family homes. Although the president’s executive order on that topic stopped short of a ban, one survey question suggests Republicans may stake out that position for the 2026 campaign.
“Zach Nunn supports banning big institutional investors and hedge funds from buying and renting out single-family homes to free up and open the single-family housing supply in the U.S.”
Housing hasn’t been a focus of Nunn’s past campaigns, but that could change.
Health care costs
Republicans have long struggled to find an effective campaign message on health care. This poll includes four questions that depict Nunn as a champion of lower health care costs, a topic that normally plays to Democrats’ strengths. Since the GOP-controlled Congress hasn’t enacted any of these policies, each statement describes a position Nunn supposedly holds—not something he has accomplished in office.
Interestingly, the poll does not gauge support for Nunn’s recent vote to extend enhanced tax credits for Affordable Care Act health insurance policies.
Here are the four statements from the poll:
“Zach Nunn supports making more verified safe pharmaceutical drugs available for over-the-counter sale to lower healthcare costs by promoting price transparency, competition and lower prices and reduce the need for costly doctor’s visits.”
Sounds wonky. Could this be a dog whistle for Republican efforts to make medications favored by MAGA influencers (ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine) available over the counter?
“Zach Nunn supports a push to lower prescription drug prices by putting into law a requirement that drug companies give Americans most favored nation pricing, which means Americans would pay the same low prices for prescription drugs as offered in any other country.”
I haven’t heard Nunn talk about that idea. House Republicans considered but did not incorporate “most favored nation” language in the budget reconciliation bill. According to the health policy news site KFF, the Trump administration has reached voluntary agreements with two pharmaceutical companies. On the other hand, one part of last year’s budget reconciliation bill “allows drug companies to exempt more products” from Medicare drug price negotiations.
“Zach Nunn supports requiring health insurance companies to publish rate and coverage comparisons on their websites in plain English to make it easier for consumers to make better insurance purchasing decisions.”
I’m sure we’re all for making insurance policy language less confusing. But regardless of how a website describes coverage options, health insurance is simply too expensive for many people.
“Zach Nunn supports lowering healthcare costs by ending the kickbacks paid by health insurance plans and pharmacy benefit managers to the healthcare brokers who act as middlemen for the insurance plans they sell to big companies.”
Again, sounds wonky. U.S. Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks has also talked up her support for regulating pharmacy benefit managers. I doubt even 5 percent of voters could explain what they do.
Probably the goal here is to craft an image of Nunn as standing for consumers against big companies that rig the system.
Child care
“Zach Nunn voted for the Working Families Tax Cut, which expands employer childcare tax credits, especially for small businesses, so employers can increase childcare benefits.”
The National Women’s Law Center created a fact sheet to refute some GOP talking points about child care in the budget reconciliation bill. The big takeaway: “While the law includes modest child care tax benefits, taken overall, the bill will do far more harm than good for children and the people who care for them.” Moreover, “few families are able to benefit from the credits, and those that do are overwhelmingly families with higher earnings.“
As for the expanded employer-provided child care credit, “it is not widely utilized, falls far short of the tremendous cost of establishing an on-site child care center, and largely benefits big corporate employers who can afford or already provide child care services to their employees.”
There’s much more detail on the fact sheet.
No tax on tips
“Zach Nunn voted for the Working Families Tax Cut, which cuts taxes on tips, so workers can keep more of their hard-earned money.”
I expect to hear lots about this signature Trump idea during the 2026 campaigns. The reality is not what Republicans would have you believe.
Corey Husak, tax policy director for the Center for American Progress, explained in an article last July, “Despite appearances, this provision will benefit only a small number of workers, and many of those workers will disproportionately suffer financial losses due to the OBBBA’s severe program cuts. The net result is that tipped workers are unlikely to experience significant gains from the OBBBA overall.”
The article walks through several scenarios, showing how some workers don’t earn enough to benefit from the deduction, while others would lose more in health insurance tax credits or food assistance than they would gain from “no tax on tips.” Husak concludes,
The OBBBA’s deductions for working people, including for tips and overtime pay, are not well-designed to benefit people most in need and are subject to strict limits. […]
Other policies, such as minimum wage increases or refundable tax credits, would deliver the most benefit to the lowest-income affected people and would have a far broader impact than “no tax on tips.”
It is instructive to compare “no tax on tips” to the OBBBA’s tax break for pass-through business owners—business owners who pay federal income taxes for their business’ income on their personal taxes. “No tax on tips” has strict requirements limiting the deduction to $25,000, sunsetting it after 2028, and disallowing higher-income taxpayers from claiming it. While these may be sensible policy choices, the OBBBA’s deduction for pass-through businesses has few such guardrails. The OBBBA permanently reauthorizes and expands the pass-through business deduction, a tax giveaway to business owners that effectively sets no limit on the amount that each taxpayer can deduct, no upper income limit for most businesspeople, and is permanent.
Don’t expect Republicans to put that in a campaign ad.
Thank you for a clear breakdown and good information for decision making! Sadly all of the R rhetoric and spinning of facts will never lure me back to vote for any of them.
Side note, when tipping I have learned servers prefer cash. With non-cash checkouts and the ease of systems like Toast, I do not trust my server will get the deserved tip..no taxes on tips is another gaslight.