Judge To Rule On Trump's Motion To Block Iowa Absentee Forms

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa: A judge said Thursday he will rule soon on a request from President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign to invalidate 50,000 requests for absentee ballots submitted by voters in Iowa’s second-largest county.

Judge Ian Thornhill heard arguments on a request for a temporary injunction that would block Linn County Auditor Joel Miller from sending ballots to those voters. Instead, the voters would have to fill out new forms to request to vote absentee.

At issue is Miller’s decision to send absentee ballot request forms to about 140,000 county voters in July that were pre-filled with their personal information, including their voter identification numbers.

Miller, a Democrat, has said that he did so to make it as easy as possible for voters to vote absentee during the coronavirus pandemic. Voters had to review, sign and return the forms to request ballots that will be mailed to them beginning Oct. 5. About 50,000 requests have been returned in the Democratic-leaning county.

Assistant Linn County attorney Elena Wolford argued that Miller acted within his authority as the local elections commissioner in approving the mailings to expand access to voting, and that no one has been hurt by them. She warned that granting an injunction would hurt voters who are expecting to receive absentee ballots and taxpayers who would be forced to pay for new forms to be sent out.

A lawyer for the Trump campaign argued that Miller failed to follow a July directive from Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, who told auditors that absentee ballot request forms must be blank when mailed to voters in order to ensure uniformity.

We think its important to fix the auditors failures to obey the secretary of state as quickly as possible, Trump attorney Alan Ostergren said. A court order now would give time for voters to be notified that they must fill out new forms, he said.

Thornhill said he would issue a written ruling as soon as possible.

The Trump campaign and state and federal Republican groups are also suing elections officials in Johnson and Woodbury counties over similar mailings. They argue that sending request forms including voters’ personal information raises the potential for voter fraud, although they have not identified any such problems so far with the mailing.

They have not proven any harm, Wolford told Thornhill.

The hearing in Linn County was the first in the campaign’s litigation, which could pave the way for post-election legal challenges over absentee ballots cast in response to the pre-filled forms. Another hearing is set for Friday in Woodbury County.

The Secretary of State’s office alleged this week that Miller’s mailing violated a law intended to protect personal information stored in government and corporate databases, and asked state and local prosecutors to investigate.

Pate’s office argued that Miller had no legitimate purpose to access voters’ identification numbers, which he then shared with an outside vendor that processed the mailing. A legal analysis argued that Miller acted in bad faith,” claiming he ignored Pate’s directive that the forms be mailed out blank.

Attorney general’s office spokesman Lynn Hicks said Thursday the office hasn’t decided whether to open a civil investigation into Miller for what Pate called a violation of the state’s consumer fraud act.

Wolford argued Thursday that the secretary of state’s directive was invalid and not binding on Miller, who has broad authority to run elections in the county.

Miller has said it was important to fill in the forms with voters’ identification numbers because a new Republican-backed state law that blocks auditors from filling in any blanks on the forms. Few people know those numbers and often leave them blank.

Under the law passed in June, auditors have to contact voters by email and mail to get them to fill any blanks rather than using their databases like they did in past elections. Critics say some voters will not complete that process and be either disenfranchised or forced to vote at crowded polling places.

Democratic-leaning and civil rights organizations are separately challenging that law, arguing that it is an unconstitutional barrier to voting.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor