News from the campaign trail, Congress, and courts

June 29 edition of "KHOI's Capitol Week"

Jules Cutler, the Libertarian candidate for lieutenant governor, speaks to reporters on June 15 (screenshot from Laura Belin’s video)

Welcome, new subscribers! Every week in this space, you will receive the audio file and a detailed written recap of my radio show and podcast, “KHOI’s Capitol Week.” I also cross-post occasional deep dives first published at Bleeding Heartland.

I share lots of other material—including video clips of Iowa candidates and elected officials—on my social media feeds, including Bluesky, X (formerly Twitter), Substack Notes, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube.

Since there have been controversies in other states after politicians paid “influencers” to create social media posts, I want to be clear: I never have and never will take money in exchange for access or helping any candidate gain exposure. When I cover a story or share a video, it’s because I consider the material newsworthy.

More broadly: to avoid conflicts of interest, I don’t accept any financial support (such as subscriptions or donations) from Iowa elected officials, candidates, or paid staff and consultants on Iowa campaigns.

On to the main event: the audio from the June 29 edition of “KHOI’s Capitol Week” is at the top of this post. Here’s the written version, for those who would rather read than listen. If your email provider truncates this message, you can read it without interruption here. What Spencer Dirks and I covered this week:

Libertarian candidates challenge exclusion from the ballot

Last Tuesday, the Libertarian ticket of Nicholas Gluba for governor and Jules Cutler for lieutenant governor filed a challenge to the State Objection Panel’s decision to knock them off the ballot.

You can read the initial court filing here. They are making several different claims, only one of which needs to succeed:

• The panel upheld a Republican objection, saying Cutler failed to submit an affidavit of candidacy. But the Libertarians argue Iowa law doesn’t even allow someone to challenge the affidavit of candidacy (only whether the person is eligible or the nominating petitions).

• They also assert they relied in good faith on an election official’s mistake. According to the Libertarians, a staffer in the Secretary of State’s office wrongly told Cutler she didn’t need to submit an affidavit along with other paperwork on June 2. (The state disputes this account, and there appears to be no recording of what happened in the office that day.) The filing cites an Iowa Supreme Court ruling from 1977 (Wingert v. Urban); in that case, the high court allowed a candidate to remain on the ballot, even though he submitted fewer signatures than the law required, because an election official gave him inaccurate information about the number he needed.

• They also say that since staff in the Secretary of State’s office accepted their nominating papers, “Gluba and Cutler, in good faith, had statutory reliance that their nomination papers were sufficient and compliant with statutory requirements.”

• In addition, they argue Secretary of State Paul Pate should have recused himself from the State Objection Panel’s consideration of this matter on June 15, because his own subordinate’s alleged mistake was central to the objection.

• They argue that after State Auditor Rob Sand recused himself from hearing this objection (because he is the Democratic nominee for governor), Iowa law required Governor Kim Reynolds (not Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig) to replace Sand on the three-member panel.

• Finally, Libertarians are challenging the requirement that third-party candidates for governor name a candidate for lieutenant governor on their nominating petitions. They say that puts third parties at a disadvantage compared to Democrats and Republicans, who can assess the post-primary political landscape before choosing a running mate.

Polk County District Court Judge Joseph Seidlin has scheduled a hearing on July 7. Keven Arrowsmith, the Republican who filed the challenge to the Libertarian ticket, has been allowed to intervene in the case. He will be represented by his own attorney, Michael Boal. The Iowa Attorney General’s office will be defending the State Objection Panel.

However the lower court ruling turns out, the losing side will appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court, which will need to rule before mid-September so that ballots can be printed in time.

Marco Battaglia, the Libertarian running for Congress in Iowa’s third district, has said he will challenge the decision to exclude him from the ballot. I expect his attorneys to file in court any day.

Battaglia was knocked off the ballot for a completely different reason: the name he was running under, which appeared on his nominating petitions, is not his legal name. So I don’t think his case will be consolidated with the Gluba/Cutler case. (In 2024 all of the Libertarian candidates for Congress were excluded for the same reason, so the Iowa Supreme Court heard only one appeal.)

RFK, Jr.’s call to Rick Stewart gets national attention

We reported earlier this month on some Republicans allegedly pressuring Marco Battaglia to end his Congressional campaign. That included text messages from a campaign consultant for the GOP incumbent, Zach Nunn, and a phone call from the U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Libertarian Party leaders told me at that time that RFK also called Rick Stewart, the party’s candidate in the second Congressional district.

The Washington Post’s Dan Diamond and Isaac Arnsdorf reported last week on RFK’s call to Stewart, with many new details. For instance:

Trump political adviser James Blair asked Kennedy to call the Libertarian candidates because Blair heard they respected him, according to two people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.

Blair, who recently took a leave from the White House to help coordinate Republicans’ midterm political strategy, did not tell Kennedy to offer the candidates anything in exchange for withdrawing, one of the people said.

Government ethics experts said Kennedy’s apparent intervention in the Iowa races was unethical and potentially illegal, depending on whether he promised candidates specific favors and whether he made the calls in his capacity as a Cabinet official, among other factors.

After the Washington Post story was published, I uploaded the audio of the whole 10-minute phone call to my YouTube channel. Since Iowa is a one-party consent state, it was legal for Stewart to record the call without Kennedy’s permission (it’s unclear whether he knew he was being recorded).

Kennedy was careful not to “go into specifics” about offering anything to Stewart in exchange for dropping his Congressional campaign. But he implied Stewart would be able to accomplish more by ending that race.

Nunn’s campaign consultant, Annie Kuhle, also didn’t offer anything specific to Marco Battaglia in the text messages I reviewed. But she warned of possible legal or financial consequences if he didn’t end his campaign.

New poll finds Sand leading Lahn

We spent several minutes discussing a poll published recently. The Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation commissioned the survey, which the pollster Cygnal conducted from June 16 to June 19. The margin of error for this poll of 600 Iowa voters is plus or minus 4 percent.

Cygnal is a GOP-aligned firm, and said the survey “was weighted to to the likely general election universe.” Among other things, they matched the recalled 2024 presidential vote (about 53 percent for Donald Trump, 40 percent for Kamala Harris) to Trump’s 13-point Iowa margin in that race. There’s no guarantee the 2026 electorate will match the presidential electorate in partisan preferences, but many pollsters make similar assumptions.

In the governor’s race, Cygnal found Democrat Rob Sand leading Republican Zach Lahn by 47.7 percent to 43.4 percent. Sand was better known than Lahn and had better ratings: 50.5 percent of respondents had a favorable view of him, just 30.2 percent unfavorable. Lahn’s numbers were 34.0 percent favorable/36.6 percent unfavorable. (I was surprised 70 percent knew enough about the GOP nominee to have an opinion.)

Two years ago, when Ann Selzer was still doing Iowa polls for the Des Moines Register, several of her surveys found Sand had better numbers than other statewide elected officials. These results seem to bear that out. No doubt it helps that Sand has been in office for almost eight years, doing public events in every county throughout his time in office.

Republicans will feel encouraged by the fact that Lahn has more room to grow, because he is not as well known. On the other hand, his negatives are already higher than Sand’s.

Same poll finds Hinson ahead of Turek

Cygnal’s poll found a small lead for Republican Ashley Hinson in Iowa’s U.S. Senate race, with 46.0 percent support for Hinson and 44.2 percent for the Democrat, Josh Turek. About 10 percent were undecided. (We previously covered a post-primary poll by a Democratic firm, which found a 2-point lead for Turek.)

It appears that Cygnal did not ask respondents about the Libertarian Senate candidate Thomas Laehn, even though he will be on the November ballot. As we’ve previously noted, Libertarian or third-party candidates for U.S. Senate in Iowa have typically received between 2 percent and 4 percent of the vote. That vote share could be higher this year, since MAGA Republican Jim Carlin (who received about a quarter of the GOP primary vote) is not endorsing Hinson.

Finally, I think Laehn’s presence on the ballot could confuse some voters. When people go to vote in a midterm election, the governor’s race is often top of mind. But every Iowa ballot will list the U.S. Senate race at the top, then the U.S. House race, and after that the candidates for governor and other statewide offices. Some Republicans may accidentally vote for Thomas Laehn for Senate, thinking they are voting for the GOP nominee for governor (Zach Lahn).

All firms who are polling Iowa races should include every candidate’s name in their survey.

Weak poll numbers for GOP on generic ballot, Trump

I was fascinated by Cygnal’s finding on the generic ballot: 47.5 percent of respondents said they plan to vote for a Republican candidate for Congress, and 44.1 percent said they will vote for a Democrat.

Those are statewide numbers. If they are accurate, given how red the fourth Congressional district is, it’s likely Democrats lead on the generic ballot in Iowa’s other three U.S. House districts.

President Donald Trump is unpopular, with 44.2 percent of respondents having a favorable impression of him and 53.3 percent an unfavorable impression. That’s in a sample that voted for him in 2024 by a 13-point margin! Again, these are statewide numbers. Trump must be way underwater in the first, second, and third Congressional districts.

We knew this already, but this poll confirms: Iowans are going to see a lot of Democratic ads trying to tie the GOP candidate to Trump.

State constitutional amendment on track to pass

Cygnal also asked respondents about a state constitutional amendment that will be on the November ballot. (This is a big deal for Iowans for Tax Relief.) Some 73.8 percent said they will probably or definitely vote yes, while only 15.7 percent will probably or definitely vote no. I’m not aware of any organized effort to campaign against the amendment.

The poll question was misleading: “Would you vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on an amendment to the Iowa state constitution that would require two-thirds of the state legislature to vote yes on any tax increase, effectively making it more difficult for the legislature to raise taxes?”

That measure would only require a supermajority to raise income or corporate taxes. The legislature could raise the regressive sales tax or other fees with a simple majority.

Poll finds small lead for Bird in attorney general race

Cygnal polled the Attorney General race and found Republican incumbent Brenna Bird leading Democratic candidate Nate Willems by 43.6 percent to 39.0 percent. Willems hasn’t done any paid advertising yet and is not well known to the electorate.

Even after almost four years on the job, Bird is largely unknown. The poll found about half the respondents either hadn’t heard of her or had no opinion, 23.5 percent had a favorable view, and 24.9 percent had an unfavorable view.

No wonder the Republican Attorneys General Association has already funneled millions to Bird’s campaign.

Lahn still running against the “uniparty”

We’ve mentioned before that Zach Lahn is running for governor on a change message. The Republican nominee continues to say he is against the “uniparty,” and says “both parties are implicated” in many of Iowa’s systemic problems. Here’s a new video the campaign has been pushing out:

I understand where this messaging is coming from. Clearly Lahn understands that Iowans are not happy about the direction of the state and want change. At the same time, his framing is a little awkward for Republicans who currently control the state. In effect, Lahn is saying they’ve done nothing to address “systemic cultural issues.”

Lahn confirms he wants to ban COVID-19 vaccines

During the Republican primary campaign, Zach Lahn called for pulling COVID-19 vaccines from the market. He confirmed on Monday that’s still his position.

He’s still frequently engaging with people on social media, and claimed (wrongly) in one post on X,

The COVID vaccines have 10x the adverse effect reports of the average vaccine.

And the HHS study done by Harvard estimated that their reporting database captures less than 1% of actual injuries

Pulling them is the compassionate answer to protect the most vulnerable Americans

Remember when anti-vax conservatives claimed to stand for “medical freedom”? Now they want to revoke everyone’s ability to choose a vaccine that’s been proven to reduce hospitalizations and deaths.

Lahn campaign portrays Sand as “radical”

Democrats—especially those on the left—know Rob Sand isn’t in their camp. But Republicans are working hard to convince Iowans that the Democratic nominee for governor is a radical liberal pretending to be a moderate.

In many cases, that involves misleading Iowans about Sand.

Over the weekend, Lahn’s campaign posted a clip from my own video of Sand’s comments to reporters before a town hall meeting. The “LahnHQ” account misrepresented the clip: “WATCH: Rob Sand admits that he would like to govern as a radical leftist but won't be able to because the legislature will be controlled by Republicans.” Sand said nothing like that. He pointed out that while the GOP claims he would govern like leaders of states with Democratic trifectas, he would be restoring divided government and checks and balances to Iowa.

Lahn, Sand criticize SCOTUS ruling in Monsanto case

On Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled in favor of Monsanto, saying manufacturers of herbicides and pesticides can’t be sued in state court for health problems those chemicals allegedly caused.

In effect the court made the pesticide immunity bill that’s caused so much angst in the Iowa legislature the law of the land nationwide.

Both Lahn and Sand criticized the decision. I didn’t have time to read their full comments on the air, but you can find them here and here. Lahn called the ruling a “terrible decision,” saying the U.S. EPA’s labeling “is a safety floor,” not a ceiling, and is “not a guarantee of product safety.” Lahn added,

This is not a win for farmers - in any way.

Farmers have now lost their ability to have recourse when they are harmed by these products.

This is happening at higher rates for them than the average population in relation to the specific cancers these products are known to cause.

Civil liability is a key part of the free market and that has now been taken that away to the detriment of the people.

Sand posted,

This decision is wrong, gross, and will continue to make life worse for Iowans.

Government insiders here in Iowa have already tried to grant immunity for companies poisoning Iowans with cancer-causing chemicals. My position is clear: no immunity for chemical companies sickening Iowans.

As governor, I will deliver the change needed to improve the health of Iowans, block any attempts at reduced immunity for companies that put our health at risk at the state level, and continue to hold our federal representatives accountable to put Iowans’ health before big corporations, powerful insiders, or their party bosses.

I don’t know of anything Iowa’s next governor could do to overcome the Supreme Court decision. They could veto a state-level pesticide immunity bill, if the legislature approved one, but I believe federal action is needed to overturn a U.S. Supreme Court decision. For instance, the EPA could change its finding on whether glyphosate (the main ingredient in Roundup) is harmful, or Congress could pass a law clarifying that the federal labeling regulations don’t block state lawsuits from those allegedly harmed by chemicals.

Rob Sand’s latest town halls

Sand continues his 100 town hall tour, and I attended his event in Osceola (Clarke County) on Friday. Probably about 50 people showed up. The format was much like last year’s events: first, acknowledge the Republicans and no-party voters in the room, and have everyone sing the first verse of “America the Beautiful.” Then Sand delivered opening remarks, leaving lots of time for unscripted audience questions.

I posted the whole video unedited, so interested readers can hear Sand’s pitch and how he handles questions.

Throughout this campaign, Sand has talked about breaking the two-party monopoly on our political system. But compared to last year’s town halls, he went into more detail about his reform proposals, such as one open primary where everyone could choose up to four candidates to appear on the November ballot.

He also endorsed the concept of “approval voting,” which is used in Fargo, North Dakota. The idea is that instead of having to choose only one candidate, you could register your approval for multiple candidates in a single race. Sand argued that it would reduce negative campaigning and attacks.

Some Republicans have complained that Sand is holding campaign events during regular working hours. I asked him whether he’s still working full time as auditor while on the road for these town halls, and he said he’s working “seven days a week.”

Nate Willems’ pitch to voters

On Sunday I attended a meet and greet for Nate Willems, the Democratic nominee for attorney general. Here’s the “elevator speech” version of his pitch: he says the Attorney General’s office has been too focused on national political issues (like suing to block Joe Biden’s policies and defend Donald Trump’s policies) instead of working to protect ordinary Iowans: workers whose wages were stolen, people in nursing homes, or consumers.

I posted the video of Willems’ opening remarks and all of the Q&A, for those who want to hear more.

Asked to name the worst things Brenna Bird has done in office, Willems mentioned how she held up the reimbursements for Plan B (emergency contraception) for rape victims, and led a lawsuit to block a Biden administration policy on safe nursing home staffing levels.

Bird highlights work with local law enforcement

I haven’t been to one of Bird’s campaign events (she doesn’t have many public ones). But some themes are already emerging: she will say she is tough on crime, and “backs the blue.”

On Monday, Bird hosted an official event with FBI Director Kash Patel and more than 100 local and state law enforcement leaders. Robin Opsahl covered that story for Iowa Capital Dispatch. The meeting was closed to the press, but Bird told reporters afterwards,

“We talked about the FBI focus on stopping human trafficking and what we can do to work together on that, whether it’s the progress they’ve made with child trafficking, labor trafficking, sex trafficking — those are very important cases that we all want to work together on,” Bird said. “We also talked about illegal drugs, drug trafficking, the reduction in fentanyl and fentanyl deaths, and the drug networks. And then we touched upon the problem of scams and frauds, and their links to transnational criminal organizations, and how we can work with the FBI to stop those scams and to hold those people accountable.”

Bird’s office has leaned into anti-LGBTQ and specifically anti-trans rhetoric. I expect her campaign to run ads highlighting her staff’s work defending the various laws Republicans passed to target transgender Iowans.

Iowans in Congress stick with Trump on Iran

We didn’t have time to cover news from Congress on our last couple of shows, so we did a little catching up this week. Both the U.S. House and Senate have approved resolutions directing Trump to end the military action against Iran. But Iowa’s delegation remains loyal to the president and his unpopular war.

The House vote on June 3 was for “Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.” A handful of Republicans voted with Democrats to pass the resolution; all four Iowans (Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Ashley Hinson, Zach Nunn, and Randy Feenstra) voted no (roll call).

This will be an issue in some of the U.S. House races as well as the Senate race.

The Senate approved the resolution last Tuesday, as Senators Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley voted no.

Some Republicans in Congress have criticized the deal the Trump administration is working toward with Iran, which would give that country access to some $300 billion. Iowa’s delegation has been quiet about that issue.

Iowans oppose more aid to Ukraine

Iowa’s members of Congress all supported aid to Ukraine after Russia invaded that country in 2022. But in the latest U.S. House vote on the issue, which happened on June 4, all four Iowans opposed more aid to Ukraine.

Since Trump returned to the White House, there has been a striking shift in the Republican Party, with anti-Ukraine and pro-Russian sentiment gaining steam. Only eighteen House Republicans voted for this measure, which “would provide $8 billion in loans to Ukraine and $1.8 billion in aid for military and security assistance” and would impose more sanctions on Russia. Almost all the House Democrats voted for the legislation.

Trump bails on signing bipartisan housing bill

Last Wednesday, President Trump was planning to sign a bipartisan housing bill at the Capitol. But he canceled that event at the last minute, demanding that Congress approve the voting restrictions in the SAVE America Act.

The “21st Century ROAD to Housing Act” passed the Senate by 85 votes to five and passed the House by 358 votes to 32. All Iowans in both chambers voted yes.

Although the White House had described this bill as “one of the most significant pieces of housing affordability legislation in American history,” Trump decided to withhold his signature as leverage with Senate Republicans.

House and Senate leaders still hope the president will sign the bill, because Republicans want to show they are doing something to make housing more affordable.

I noticed Sunday night that the housing bill was the focus of Miller-Meeks’ weekly email newsletter. She declared at the top, “I Voted for the Most Significant Housing Legislation in a Generation.” Miller-Meeks summarized the bill as follows: “It cuts red tape, expands housing supply, makes it easier and cheaper to build affordable homes, and bans large Wall Street investors from competing against Iowa families for single-family homes in our communities. Iowa homes belong to Iowa families, not hedge funds.”

She closed by promising, “Iowa families deserve a place to call their own. I will not stop fighting until they get it.” But her newsletter didn’t mention that Trump is the only reason this bill isn’t already a law.

Renewed fight over governor’s use of COVID relief funds

Last week the Iowa Department of Management asked the State Auditor’s office to revise a report issued in 2021, which found the governor improperly used federal COVID-19 relief funds to pay part of her staff salaries. The U.S. Treasury Department recently determined (at the request of the Reynolds administration) that the spending was allowable.

I know the backstory well, because following months of digging and public records requests, I was first to report in September 2020 that Governor Reynolds used $448,448 of CARES Act funds to pay a portion of salaries and benefits for 21 people on her staff between March 2020 and June 2020.

I was also first to report in October 2020 that her administration routed the funds through the Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, making it hard to understand that the governor’s staff were being paid with COVID relief funds.

Finally, I was first to report in December 2020 on documents I obtained from the state Homeland Security agency, which showed that spreadsheets were altered to make it appear that funds needed to balance a shortfall in the governor’s office budget were “COVID-19 Personnel Costs.”

I’m working on a longer piece about this, so won’t go into all the details now. On the show, I emphasized that the CARES Act was very restrictive about how COVID-19 relief funds could be used. State and local governments had to show the costs were incurred due to the pandemic (e.g. hiring new staff to handle pandemic issues, or putting people in different roles). By comparison governors had much more flexibility with the American Rescue Plan funding, approved during Joe Biden’s presidency.

The Reynolds administration compiled a bunch of supposed documentation in late 2021, but the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Inspector General never stated that it was fine to use CARES Act funds for that purpose in 2020. I checked with them in 2021 and again in 2022.

Sand is refusing to amend the report his office issued in 2021, which determined the spending was not allowable, and Reynolds should return those COVID relief funds. On social media last week, Sand said he “will not bow to political pressure on a 6-year-old issue they are bringing up 4 months before an election.” He even asserted that the spending was closer to “fraud” than an “allowable expense.”

I really wonder why the Reynolds administration wanted to relitigate this issue. My best guess is they think it will bolster the Republican talking point that Sand has been too political in his role as state auditor.

Federal court blocks Iowa’s food restrictions for SNAP

Last Tuesday, a federal district court in Washington, DC ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture unlawfully issued waivers to Iowa and four other states restricting which foods people could buy with the federal food assistance known as SNAP.

Iowa was the first state to receive one of these waivers, which took effect on January 1, 2026. But our state was not sued in this case–the USDA is the defendant.

Stephen Gruber-Miller covered the court ruling well in his story for the Des Moines Register. He explained, “The lawsuit's plaintiffs, including Iowan Marc Craig, argued Iowa's SNAP restrictions were confusing and made it difficult to know what SNAP recipients could or couldn't buy with their benefits.”

The judge wrote that “U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins relied on the wrong section of federal law to justify granting the waivers.” Iowa was prohibiting SNAP recipients from using federal food assistance to buy any food or drink that is taxable. But now that the waiver is on hold, Iowans on SNAP can use that money to buy anything that meets the federal definition of “food.”

I have been trying to figure out how this ruling affects the USDA’s summer meals program for around 240,000 Iowa kids who qualify for free or reduced-price school lunches. Under a new law Reynolds signed this year, Iowa cannot participate in the summer meals program unless the USDA has approved a waiver restricting what families can buy with federal food assistance.

Staff in the governor’s office and the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services told me that agency is “working to get guidance from USDA.”

Kim Reynolds is still defending the policy, claiming in a written statement, “The changes proposed aren’t a mandate—SNAP members can choose what they want, but the state won’t pay for unhealthy foods.”

But as Gruber-Miller has previously reported, whether food is taxable in Iowa doesn’t always indicate whether it is “healthy.”

Iowa Supreme Court rules against permanently stripping domestic abuser of gun rights

We haven’t covered many Iowa Supreme Court rulings this year, but we took a minute to flag an interesting decision issued on Friday. In State v. Schadl, the court’s majority held that the state’s permanent ban on firearms possession for convicted domestic abusers is unconstitutional in some cases. You can read the whole majority and dissenting opinions here. William Morris covered the decision for the Des Moines Register.

The five justices in the majority said there has to be a case-by-case analysis to see whether a lifetime ban on gun ownership can withstand “strict scrutiny,” the standard written into the state constitutional amendment Iowans adopted in 2022.

When this measure was being debated in the Iowa legislature, several Democrats warned Republicans that the “strict scrutiny” language could lead to this kind of outcome, with gun restrictions being struck down. To withstand a strict scrutiny analysis, the state needs to show there is a compelling government interest that is “narrowly tailored.” This defendant from Dubuque County hasn’t reoffended since his misdemeanor domestic abuse conviction in 2010.

Justice Matthew McDermott, who wrote the majority opinion, said the law would not be unconstitutional in all cases. I expect more litigation on behalf of Iowans with felony convictions, claiming the ban on firearms possession violates their fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Justice Christopher McDonald, joined by Justice Dana Oxley, dissented in this case. Their view is that all gun regulations that were on the books when Iowa passed the state constitutional amendment in 2022 should be presumed constitutional.

That’s all for now. Thanks for reading or listening!