Iowa Libertarian governor candidate plans to appeal ballot removal 10%
By Robin Opsahl10%
7/30/2026, 9:23:16 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Optimism Bias, and Actor-Observer Bias, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 9.1% saturation with 80 hits. Analysis detected 480 faulty-reasoning hits from 877 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 21.6% and a BS Rank of 10% (24,274 of 26,881 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 90.30% of the article peer group.
Iowa Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Nicholas Gluba said Wednesday, July 29, his campaign plans to appeal a district court decision keeping him and his running mate off the ballot.
Gluba and his running mate Jules Cutler, the Libertarian lieutenant governor candidate, were taken of the Nov. 3, 2026, general election ballot for Iowa governor by the State Objections Panel in June.
The panel found Cutler had not submitted an affidavit of candidacy for lieutenant governor before the deadline of 5 p.m., June 2, which disqualified their ticket.
Cutler and her attorney, Jacob Heard had argued Dani Phillips, an elections support specialist at the secretary of state’s office told her she was not required to submit this paperwork when she accompanied Gluba to file for ballot access.
The gubernatorial ticket filed an appeal to the State Objection Panel’s decision in Polk County District Court.
After hearing arguments for the case earlier in July, Polk County District Court Judge Joseph Seidlin released a decision in the case Monday, upholding the panel’s decision.
In a Wednesday interview, Gluba said this decision is not the end of the road for a Libertarian gubernatorial ticket.
Gluba said he believed the judge’s decision reflects that “he decided he did not have the authority to change it,” but that a higher body — particularly, the Iowa Supreme Court — would be able to make a decision.
“So, we’ll be working on another appeal,” Gluba said.
The Monday decision addresses several of the Libertarian candidates’ claims about why the objection panel’s decision was not valid.
The three-member panel typically consists of Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, Attorney General Brenna Bird, and Iowa Auditor Rob Sand, but because Sand is running as the Democratic candidate for Iowa governor, he recused himself and was replaced by Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig.
The candidates argued Sand should have been replaced by Gov.
Kim Reynolds according to state law, and that Pate, who employs the elections support specialist, should have been recused from the panel.
Seidlin stated in the ruling he did not find that “the Panel’s decision to allow Secretary Naig to replace Auditor Sand on the Panel was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious,” and that “while the court can accept that Secretary Pate has an interest in having honest employees with good memories, there has to be more to trigger an obligation to recuse.”
However, the court decision also questions the State Objections Panel for affirming Phillips’ testimony at the June meeting without also considering Cutler’s account of the events.
Phillips had told panel members she was not asked about filing an affidavit of candidacy, nor did she receive the paperwork from Cutler, but she also stated she did not know if Cutler had accompanied Gluba when he filed his paperwork.
“The court disagrees with the Panel’s finding that Cutler never offered and Phillips never declined or refused to receive Cutler’s affidavit of candidacy,” Seidlin wrote.
“At best, the evidence appears to the court to be in equipoise.
Nevertheless, the court cannot simply substitute its own findings for the Panel’s.”
While the decision upheld the panel removing Gluba and Cutler from the ballot, it still left a potential opening for a Libertarian ticket to appear on the ballot, if Cutler were to be replaced.
The Libertarian candidates requested in court, as well as when they spoke to the panel, to be allowed to select a successor running mate for Gluba.
Seidlin wrote this was not part of the objections process, and “the court should not give advisory opinions concerning a matter not before it.”
Gluba said he believes this decision opens the door for the Iowa Supreme Court to weigh in on these issues.
“If it goes to higher court, it would be the Iowa Supreme Court, which would therefore have supreme authority,” he said.
“… So I believe that was his thought process was to refer to a higher court and establish case law throughout the state of Iowa as to how this will work in the future.”
Libertarian candidates’ challenges to State Objections Panel decisions have come before the Iowa Supreme Court before.
In 2024, the state’s highest court upheld a State Objections Panel decision to remove three Libertarian candidates running for congressional offices in Iowa from the 2024 ballot because the state Libertarian party did not conduct its nominating process in accordance with state law.
Gluba said he believed the case being brought this year is significantly different from the issue brought up in 2024, related to the party nominating process.
“I feel fairly confident,” Gluba said.
“Our case is actually pretty solid.
The district court judge even agreed with us, that our case is good.
He just did not, for reasons, decided to act in our favor.”
Gluba said the campaign has not yet filed an appeal.
If reinstated by the court, Gluba and his running mate would appear on the ballot alongside Sand, the Democratic nominee, and Republican gubernatorial nominee Zach Lahn.
See this story on Iowa Capital Dispatch, part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence.
Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com.
Speakers
6speakers63%attributed speech324writer words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageDani Phillips
41 attributed words7.4% of attributed speech38% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.