The Iowa secretary of state campaign looks like a nail-biter. Neither Democrat Brad Anderson nor Republican Paul Pate has had a lead outside the margin of error in any public poll I’ve seen. The new Loras College statewide survey shows Anderson barely ahead of Pate by 39.9 percent to 39.0 percent. That survey did not include the other two candidates running for secretary of state, even though Libertarian Jake Porter received about 3 percent of the statewide vote in 2010.

When Anderson and Pate appeared jointly on Iowa Public Television earlier this month (in a “job interview” that resembled a debate), major differences between the candidates were apparent. Pate would continue outgoing Secretary of State Matt Schultz’s crusade for a voter ID law, an expensive “fix” to a non-existent problem, which risks disenfranchising voters. Anderson proposes several ideas to improve the voter file and maintain security, without depressing turnout.

During the same “Iowa Press” program, Pate hedged on whether former employees of the Secretary of State’s Office should pay back the state for salary and benefits they received for doing no work. I’ve enclosed that exchange after the jump. I would guess that 90 percent of Iowans agree with Anderson: it’s a “no-brainer” that these people should pay back the money.

Pate’s campaign website is mostly devoid of policy ideas. His case to voters is simple: he has more experience, having served as secretary of state before, he supports voter ID requirements, and he is a “non-partisan leader,” as opposed to his “partisan political operative” opponent. Never mind that Pate once sought the position of Iowa GOP chair.

Compared to Pate, Anderson has proposed more specific ideas for improving the work of the Secretary of State’s Office. (For that matter, so has Porter.) Anderson’s campaign website includes not only ideas to make Iowa number one in voter turnout, but also proposals to make it easier to start a business, create a new registry for veteran-owned businesses, improve the integrity of the Iowa caucuses, make it easier for overseas and military voters to cast ballots, and most recently, an address confidentiality program that would allow survivors of domestic abuse or sexual violence “to register to vote, cast a ballot, and go about daily life without fear for safety.” (Pate’s campaign quickly announced that the Republican also supports “Safe at Home” measures.)

Anderson and Pate are still running the television and radio commercials Bleeding Heartland covered here. In addition, a group I’d never heard of called iVote has spent just under $30,000 to run a tv ad opposing Pate. Democratic strategists created the new political action committee to get involved in several secretary of state races. When I saw iVote’s spot for the first time during a lunchtime local newscast, the unorthodox style caught my attention. I’ve enclosed the video and transcript below. The Cedar Rapids Gazette’s fact-checker rated this ad “true.”

Speaking of the Gazette, that newspaper endorsed Anderson today, saying he would offer “a clean break” from the “sorry chapter” of Schultz’s tenure as secretary of state. Click through to read the whole editorial, or scroll own to read excerpts. How embarrassing for Pate not to get the support of his hometown newspaper. He’s been a local business owner for decades as well as a former Cedar Rapids mayor and former state senator representing part of Linn County.  

Frm Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” episode of October 3:

Lynch: Speaking of Matt Schultz, Mr. Pate, you said early on in this campaign that you thought Matt Schultz had done a good job of running his office. But a recent audit found that there are people who were being paid for work they weren’t doing. Should those people pay back that money? Should they return that money to the state?

Pate: I think that Matt Schultz has got a responsibility to the taxpayers, just like any other statewide elected official has, and he’ll have to respond to that and deal with it. I can tell you this much, and that is, my focus as Secretary of State is going to be on the priorities of Iowans. And I’ve said them already what they are today. It is voter ID, it is about participation. I think my opponent and I differ on those, quite significantly frankly, because I think if you don’t feel confident in the system, it’s hard to increase or expand accessibility. We need to do those things first.

Lynch: But if they don’t repay it, will people have confidence in the system?

Pate: I think, for one thing, I’m proposing a performance audit on the office when I take office. And I would ask for that audit to be done on a regular basis because I think all state operations should do that. I’m very comfortable having people review my procedures and that is what I’d welcome. So, it would be easy.

Lynch: Mr. Anderson, should they repay that money?

Anderson: Yes. I mean, this is a simple, no-brainer to me, James. And I’m the only candidate in this race that has called on these employees, again, here in Iowa we value work. And these employees have cost the state $110,000 and they have produced no work product. I think this absolutely this is something that republicans, democrats, everyone can get behind. They should absolutely repay, either repay the general fund, which is what I have asked them to do, or they can provide some work product that they have done on the taxpayer dime. Either way, we need to see some benefit for the $110,000 that were paid to these no-show employees.

Independent expenditure ad by iVote, Story–Paul Pate’s Real Record.

My transcript:

Male voice-over, reading in the manner of a children’s book: This is the story of a man named Paul Pate, who once was Iowa secretary of state. [Viewer sees a drawing of a man labeled Paul Pate, ex-Secretary of State]

His academic past he did exaggerate, that man that they call Mr. Paul Pate. [Cartoon-style drawing of man proudly holding a diploma, wearing cap and gown. Words on screen “Pate Exaggerated His Academic Credentials. Des Moines Register, 9/25/97”]

State ethics rules he did violate, used his office for politics, that Mr. Paul Pate. [drawing shows man feeding pages from ethics manual into a shredder; to the side a newspaper clipping can be seen headlined, “Pate gets reprimand from state.” Above the drawing, words read “Reprimanded by State Ethics Board.” Des Moines Register, 2/13/98 “Used Office For Politics.” Des Moines Register, 10/14/97]

Trademarking slogans that belonged to the state [Drawing shows state employees working, handing papers to man who is stamping them Property of Paul Pate; words on screen “Pate Personally Trademarked State-Owned Slogans.” Des Moines Register, 3/12/99]

“Big league sleaze” did the Register state. [Des Moines Register logo appears above headline “BIG LEAGUE SLEAZE”; in small print credited to Borsellino, Des Moines Register, 2/4/99]

So the lesson to learn about Mr. Paul Pate: we can do better for secretary of state. [Drawing shows man walking down road with lots of signs reading “No” or “Stop it!” or “Go!” or “OUT!!” Words on screen “Paul Pate? Iowa Deserves Better.” In small print near bottom of screen, paid for message with iVote Fund’s address and contact info]

From the Cedar Rapids Gazette’s October 28 editorial, “Anderson offers a clean break”:

In the past, our endorsement process has skipped over most so-called “down-ballot” statewide races, such as Iowa secretary of state. But we believe this fall’s contest for that office is too important to ignore. […]

This 2014 race is cast against the backdrop of the last four years, during which Secretary of State Matt Schultz spent $250,000 in a search of voter fraud. […]

It’s been a sorry chapter. And although we admire Pate’s record of service and believe he would be an improvement over Schultz, we think Anderson would make the cleanest break from the Schultz years. So he earns our endorsement.

What we like most about Anderson’s candidacy is his emphasis on expanding participation in Iowa elections, rather than erecting hurdles in the name of fighting scarce fraud.