COLUMN: For Pate, it’s whom messes up, not how

Less than two months before the Nov. 5 election, Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, whose office oversees elections, was one of the deciding factors in not allowing Libertarian candidates on three of the state’s four Representative districts’ ballots.

According to the Associated Press, challenges filed against the candidates were made by Iowans affiliated with the Republican Party. They accused the Libertarian Party of failing to follow state law on the procedure for nominating their candidates. Lawyers for the candidates had argued the technicality in question did not invalidate the candidates’ selection.

The ruling came in an appeal by the candidates after the State Objection Panel, composed of one Democrat and two Republican elected officials, ruled 2-1 that the Libertarian candidates should be removed from the ballot on a technicality. The panel agreed with several Republican Party officials who argued the Libertarian Party failed to follow state law when it nominated the candidates at its county conventions, which were held on the same day as precinct caucuses where the county convention delegates were selected. State law says the term of convention delegates begins the day after the caucuses.

The panel’s two Republican members, Attorney General Brenna Bird and Pate, sided with the challengers, saying the parties are obligated to follow the rules governing candidate nominations. The lone dissent on the three-person panel came from State Auditor Rob Sand, a Democrat, who accused his colleagues of political bias.

Libertarians have some ideologies similar to Republicans. Like Sand, those critical of the decision claim Bird and Pate were only protecting Republicans. Not having a third party on the ballot prevents losing potential votes for Republicans.

It could be argued Sand wanted the Libertarians on the ballot to ensure votes between the Republican and Libertarian could give the Democrat candidate an advantage. I’m not confident with that reasoning. Sand has a record of his concern of the massive dominance between Democrats and Republicans every campaign season, meaning he thinks voters should have more options on who to vote for. I agree. Tirerack.com has more than 100 car makes for their tires. Walk down the cereal aisle at your grocery store and it feels the same. But when it comes to running the state or country, we are only to have two choices.

I am tired of the repetitive, recycled blaming and finger pointing between Democrats and Republicans every four years. It gets old fast. The answers are not in the extremes. The country needs a viable, legitimate third, or fourth party, to consider.

The few times I’ve heard him speak in Creston Sand said he holds Democrats and Republicans equally accountable. His testimony during the objection panel backed that up for me.

Who disappoints me is Pate. Go back to the 2020 Iowa caucus. The Democrats used new technology to track the votes, but the technology miserably failed. No one knew who won when the evening was over. It was a disaster and the second caucus we, as Iowans, messed up. Remember, in 2012 we couldn’t do the math for the Republican candidates. At least we treated both sides the same. I digress.

“The accuracy of the Iowa Democratic Party’s vote totals is much more important than the timeliness of releasing the results. I am glad to hear they have a paper trail for their votes,” Pate stated after the 2020 caucus. The caucus is not affiliated with any form of state government. They are ran purely by the political parties. Pate was not secretary of state in 2012.

Pate didn’t say he wanted the process tossed. He was glad to hear they could track their system.

I question Pate’s approaches to 2020 and the Libertarian issue. The Libertarian issue is all about timing; not the people nominated. If there were Libertarian disputing over who should have been nominated because of the timing, the complaints then have legitimacy. I still have not found anything Libertarian implying candidates were upset over who was nominated because of their process. When the word “technicality” is used, it also questions how severe the infraction.

We didn’t know in a timely manner who won the Iowa caucuses in ‘12 or ‘16 because of the methods used. Libertarians clearly knew who they wanted this year.

During the testimony, Sand referred to each political party having their own process. He didn’t think it was right for the board to somehow cancel the Libertarian’s process. The technicality didn’t question who won.

Pate wants to use his position to determine who wins, or give a better chance at winning.