On behalf of Secretary of State Matt Schultz, the Iowa Attorney General’s office has asked the Iowa Supreme Court to review last month’s District Court decision invalidating a proposed rule that has been one of Schultz’s priorities. As Bleeding Heartland discussed here, the rule would allow the Secretary of State’s Office to check Iowa voters’ citizenship status against a federal database. Registered voters suspected of not being citizens would be informed by mail. Those who cannot prove their citizenship or do not respond within 60 days would be removed from the voter rolls.
Polk County District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg determined that Schultz overstepped his authority when he promulgated the rule. His decision in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa and the Iowa League of United Latin American Citizens did not address a separate legal question: whether Schultz’s rule violated the right to vote.
If the Iowa Supreme Court overturns last month’s decision, that would mean only that the Secretary of State had the authority to establish the new rule in the absence of legislative action. Further litigation would determine whether the procedure Schultz envisioned could intimidate eligible voters or deprive them of their rights.
I expect the Iowa Supreme Court to uphold the District Court ruling. Regardless, the appeal may boost Schultz’s standing with Republican primary voters in the third Congressional district. They will love this part of yesterday’s press release from the Secretary of State’s Office:
“I have fought for integrity and voter’s rights. We can’t allow non-citizens to cancel out the vote of Iowans, but at the same time, anyone accused deserves due process. My rule gives voters more due process and protects the integrity of the vote,” Schultz said.
Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread. Schultz’s use of the phrase “due process” suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding of his role. The Secretary of State is an administrator, not a law enforcement official.
1 Comment
A Fundamental Misunderstanding
I agree. A fundamental misunderstanding. We have heard ideas such as adding economic development to the Secretary of State’s office, using e-verify, and misusing federal funds (which if I remember they criticized Culver for improper spending HAVA funds as SOS) that the state will likely have to pay back.
Now, there is the direct mailing from his campaign that looks like it is an official document from the Secretary of State’s office.
When did fiscal irresponsibility, government regulations, and showing your papers become conservative virtues?
jakeporter Sat 5 Apr 4:58 AM