RNC, TRUMP CAMPAIGN vs. Patrick Gill
RNC, TRUMP CAMPAIGN vs. Patrick Gill
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Defendant.
On the 28th day of August 2020, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction filed
August 17, 2020, came before the Court for hearing. By agreement of the parties the
hearing was held by videoconference. The Plaintiffs appeared through their counsel Alan
Ostergren. The Defendant appeared along with his counsel Jeff Wright. The Intervenors
appeared through their counsel Kevin Hamilton. The hearing was reported by Official
Each party made oral argument and the matter was submitted based on the
arguments presented and the filings of the parties. Based on the record created and the
1. The Plaintiffs in this matter are the Republican National Committee, Donald J.
Republican Congressional Committee, and The Republican Party of Iowa. Each are
2. The Defendant, Patrick Gill, is the duly elected County Auditor for Woodbury
County, Iowa. As such he is the County Commissioner of Elections for Woodbury County,
Iowa.
Latinx Civil Rights organization and Majority Forward is a Section 501(c)(4) nonprofit
organization. Both organizations are actively involved in voting rights issues involving
4. On August 14, 2020, the Plaintiffs’ filed their Petition for Declaratory Judgment
5. In the Plaintiff’s Petition, the Plaintiffs seek a finding and declaration by the Court
that the Defendant has violated the Iowa Secretary of State’s July 17, 2020, Emergency
the Petition requests that the Defendant be enjoined in the following ways:
a) That the Defendant be ordered to obey the July 17, 2020, directive of the Iowa
b) That the Defendant shall obey all other orders or directives of the Secretary of
State;
c) That the defendant shall with respect to any prepopulated ABR forms returned
to his office:
i) Contact the sender in writing to inform the sender that the prepopulated
ABR form should not have been sent in the form provided by the
Defendant;
ii) Inform the sender that the defendant is unable to act on the prepopulated
2
E-FILED 2020 AUG 28 5:29 PM WOODBURY - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
ABR form;
iii) Invite the sender to submit an ABR in the form prescribed by the
Secretary of State.
d) That the injunction entered shall apply to the Defendant, his employees and any
6. That the Plaintiffs also sought a Temporary Injunction to order this same relief
on a temporary basis pending the final outcome of the Petition. This is the matter currently
7. That the League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa’s and Majority
Forward filed an Answer and Motion to Intervene wherein they sought to intervene as
8. A hearing was held on the Motion to Intervene on August 24, 2020, and an order
was entered on August 25, 2020, granting the Motion to Intervene in part and denying the
Motion in part. The Court’s order allowed the intervenors to participate in the hearing on
the request for temporary injunction regarding what the appropriate remedy should be if
9. The dispute herein involves the manner in which absentee ballot requests are
Emergency in regards to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 17, 2020, President Trump
proclamations, the Iowa Secretary of State requested permission from the Iowa
3
E-FILED 2020 AUG 28 5:29 PM WOODBURY - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
issues dealing with voting challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. After
obtaining approval from the Legislative Counsel, the Iowa Secretary of State issued an
Emergency Election Proclamation on July 17, 2020. This proclamation provided that the
Secretary of State would mail an Official State of Iowa Absentee Ballot Request form with
instructions to Iowa’s active registered voters for the November 3, 2020, election, which
form was to be blank expect for the Election Date and Type. Said proclamation further
stated that County Auditors shall distribute “only the blank Official State of Iowa Absentee
Ballot Request From with official instructions that is promulgated by the Secretary of
State’s Office pursuant to Iowa Code Section 53.2(2)(a).” The purpose of using blank
forms purportedly to be “to ensure uniformity and to provide voters with consistent
12. Shortly after the issuance of the Secretary of State’s Proclamation, the
Defendant directed the members of his office to send ABR forms with voter identification
information pre-populated on the forms to attempt to control the costs of compliance with
HF 2643 and to assist voters with the difficulties they have with correctly supplying their
13. The Defendant has sent out over 56,000 ABR forms to the citizens of
date of this hearing the Defendant has received approximately 16,000 signed ABR forms
back. Of this number the Defendant estimates that approximately 14,000 are in response
to his mailing of the pre-populated ABR’s. These forms were sent to active voters in
4
E-FILED 2020 AUG 28 5:29 PM WOODBURY - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
13. HF2643, approved by the legislature in June 2020, amended Iowa Code
contact directly persons who had submitted an ABR with incorrect or missing identifying
information before processing the ABR and issuing an absentee ballot. Prior to HF2643,
the County Commissioner would use the I-Voter database to correct such missing
information without having to contact the applicant. This change in the statute could
create a significant burden upon the Defendant as he estimates that he would have to
contact between 3,000 and 4,000 applicants that would have submitted applications with
14. The Defendant contends that it will cost his office at least $20,000 just to notify
each person sent a pre-populated ABR form that it would not be accepted and that a new
ABR had to be requested. He would also have to hire five temporary employees and
obtain additional equipment to void the pre-populated ABR forms and that this would take
30 days to complete. The Defendant also believes that this process would create a great
deal of confusion and disenfranchisement with voters who thought that they had already
15. In defense of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction, the Defendant
b) That the Plaintiffs have failed to show that they are likely to succeed on the
5
E-FILED 2020 AUG 28 5:29 PM WOODBURY - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
2) State law does not prohibit the County Auditor from mailing pre-populated
ABR’s.
d) That the balance of harm analysis weighs against the issuance of a temporary
injunction.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
The primary function of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo and
protect the subject of the litigation until a final hearing so that a court may grant full,
effective relief, if warranted. Lewis Investments Inc. v. City of Iowa City, 703 N.W.2d 180,
discretion of the trial court, dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case. Id.
of judicial power which requires great caution, deliberation, and sound discretion. Kleman
harm/damage. Show v. Goforth, 618 N.W.2d 275, 277-78 (Iowa 2000). An injunction
“should be granted with caution and only when clearly required to avoid irreparable
damage.” A court of equity will not grant injunctive relief “unless it appears there is an
invasion or threatened invasion of a right, and that substantial injury will result to the party
injunction is appropriate only when the party seeking it has no adequate remedy at law.
Before granting an injunction, the court should carefully weigh the relative hardship which
would be suffered by the enjoined party upon awarding injunctive relief. Worthington v.
Kenkel, 684 N.W.2d 228, 232 (Iowa 2004) quoting Matlock v. Weets, 531 N.W.2d 118,
of a right, (2) substantial injury or damages will result unless an injunction is granted, and
(3) no adequate legal remedy is available. In Re Estate of Hurt, 681 N.W.2d 591, 595
a preliminary injunction. Dataphase Systems v. C.L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114
(8th Cir. 1981). Loss of income, ultimately recoverable upon a trial of the merits, does
7
E-FILED 2020 AUG 28 5:29 PM WOODBURY - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
not usually constitute irreparable injury. Mere injuries, however substantial in terms of
money, time and energy necessarily expended in the absence of an injunction, are not
other corrective relief will be available at a later date, in the ordinary course of litigation,
weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable harm. Sampson v. Murray, 94 S.Ct. 937
(1974). Thrasher v. Grip-Tite Mfg. Co., 535 F.Supp.2d 937, 944 (S.D. Iowa 2008).
In addition, when seeking a temporary injunction, a party must show that it is likely
to succeed on the merits of the underlying claim. PIC USA v. North Carolina Farm
Partnership, 672 N.W.2d 718, 722 (Iowa 2003). The court in addressing the issue of
whether the moving party is entitled to a preliminary injunction must view the facts in light
of the applicable substantive law which will govern the merits of the claims made by the
moving party. Wachovia v. Stanton, 571 F.Supp. 1014, 1033 (N.D. Iowa 2008). APAC
Where the granting of a temporary injunction would grant essentially the same
relief that the moving party would obtain if it won at trial, the movant’s burden to prove
that the balance of factors weighs in its favor is a heavy one. APAC Teleservices Inc.,
A denial of a temporary injunction does not deprive a plaintiff of the right to a trial
such right. The granting or denial of a preliminary injunction upon a finding of facts is not
a final decree. It does not constitute an adjudication of the facts on which the preliminary
ruling was made. The judge who hears the suit on the merits is not precluded from
8
E-FILED 2020 AUG 28 5:29 PM WOODBURY - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
reconsidering the facts upon which a temporary ruling was based. Economy Roofing v.
should be limited to the requirements of the particular case. The acts or things enjoined
should be definitely specified, and they should be set forth with certainty and clearness
so that persons bound by the decree may readily know what they must refrain from doing
A court will not issue an injunction unless the objected to acts are likely to occur in
the future. The court in Lemmon v. Hedrickson, 559 N.W.2d 278 (Iowa 1997) in quoting
“Equity interposes by injunction to prevent future rather than past acts, and
so acts and practices will not, as a rule, furnish a basis for injunctive relief
when they have been discontinued or abandoned before institution of the
suit to restrain them, or even after such suit is begun, particularly where
there is nothing to indicate a probability that they will be resumed….”
Conley v. Warne, 236 N.W.2d 682, 686 (Iowa 1975) (quoting 42 Am.Jur.2d Injunctions
Standing
To have standing a party must demonstrate that it has a legal interest in the
litigation and that it has been injuriously affected by the Defendant. Godfrey v. State, 752
N.W.2d 413, 418 (Iowa 2008). The litigant must have some type of injury different from
the population in general. Id. at 420. The injury involved need not be economic and can
9
E-FILED 2020 AUG 28 5:29 PM WOODBURY - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
Iowa Code Section 47.1 sets forth the authority of the Iowa Secretary of State as
5. The state commissioner shall adopt rules pursuant to chapter 17A, for
10
E-FILED 2020 AUG 28 5:29 PM WOODBURY - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
defined as follows:
Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis (“of the same kind or class”) specific words
following more general words restrict application of the more general words to things that
are similar to the specific words. Shatzer v. Globe Am. Cas. Co., 639 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa
11
E-FILED 2020 AUG 28 5:29 PM WOODBURY - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
2001). While whether COVID-19 constitutes a natural disaster has not been determined
by the Iowa Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Friends of Danny
Devito v. Wolf, 227 A.3d 872 (PA 2020), found that it did constitute a natural disaster
referring to a definition similar to that in Iowa. In Devito, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
stated as follows:
Devito, at 888-889.
The procedure for requesting an absentee ballot in Iowa is set forth in Iowa Code
received by the commissioner more than one hundred twenty days prior to
the date of the election shall be returned to the voter with a notification of
the date when the applications will be accepted.
3. This section does not require that a written communication mailed to the
commissioner's office to request an absentee ballot, or any other document
be notarized as a prerequisite to receiving or marking an absentee ballot or
returning to the commissioner an absentee ballot which has been voted.
an additional notice to the address where the applicant requested the ballot
to be sent. A commissioner shall not use the voter registration system to
obtain additional necessary information. A voter requesting or casting a
ballot pursuant to section 53.22 shall not be required to provide a voter
verification number.
a party, the voter shall be mailed the ballot of the party indicated on the
voter's registration record.
The burden upon the party seeking a temporary injunction is a heavy burden. To
obtain an injunction, the party seeking it must show conduct detrimental to their rights,
substantial injury or damage as a result of such conduct and that no other legal remedy
is available. Further, the applicant must show that it is likely to succeed on the merits of
its claim.
The Defendant initially contends that the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their
request for injunctive relief. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs’ interests in this
matter is of a general nature only. Apart from the general public, the Plaintiffs in this case
are political parties and candidate organizations that are on the ballot in Woodbury
County. The Plaintiffs clearly have an interest in the manner in which absentee ballots
are handled far beyond the interests of a regular citizen. The Plaintiffs have a direct
interest in seeking that a uniform election system is in place and that established election
rules and laws are complied with. Accordingly the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have
The Defendant does not dispute that he did not comply with the Secretary of
State’s Emergency Election Directive issued July 17, 2020. The Defendant asserts that
he was not obligated to follow that directive because it was improperly issued and that he
has the authority under Iowa Code Section 47.2 to distribute ABR forms on his own.
The Defendant contends that the Secretary of State exceeded his authority to
exercise emergency powers under Section 47.1(2)(a) as no natural or other disaster had
occurred to authorize such exercise of power. The Defendant asserts that since the
15
E-FILED 2020 AUG 28 5:29 PM WOODBURY - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
disaster Iowa, and for that matter nearly the entire world is facing, is a “public health
disaster” that “natural or other disaster” has not occurred. While the Defendant is correct
that the definition of a “natural disaster” in the Iowa Administrative Code lists fire, flood,
blizzard, earthquake, tornado, windstorm and ice storm as what constitutes a “natural
disaster” such definition also includes the language “other events” which threaten the
public health of the people. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court pointed out in Devito,
supra at 888-889, the only commonality among the items listed is that they all involve
COVID-19 is a disaster that involves overwhelming hardship and possible loss of life, as
restrictions on the day to day lives of the residents of Woodbury County have been in
effect now for months and many residents have been infected and unfortunately far too
many have died. Under the circumstances, it is clear to the Court that the State of Iowa
was and continues to face a natural disaster as that term is defined by the Iowa
Administrative Code when the Secretary of State issued his emergency election directive.
Accordingly the Court finds that the Secretary of State’s actions in issuing that directive
were properly authorized by Iowa Code Section 47.1(2). In addition, the Court further
finds that the Secretary of State’s directive to require all County Commissioners (County
Auditors) to issue blank ABR forms was appropriate to ensure statewide uniformity for the
issuance of those forms. While the Defendant is correct that there cannot be absolute
statewide uniformity in how each respective county auditor carries out their election
duties, (managing employees, polling places, etc.) it is not unreasonable to expect that
The Defendants next contend that State law does not prohibit the Defendant from
16
E-FILED 2020 AUG 28 5:29 PM WOODBURY - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
mailing pre-printed ABR forms to the eligible voters in their county. While it does appear
mailing ABR out on their own initiative, Iowa Code Section 53.2(4) would appear to
prohibit the sending of prepopulated forms to voters. Section 53.2(4) requires that for a
voter to request an absentee ballot, the voter “shall provide” their name and signature,
their date of birth, address and voter verification number. If these pieces of information
are already preprinted on the ABR form it would seem impossible that this information is
being provided by the voter, it would in effect be being provided by the County Auditor
whose job it is to ensure that the information provided is accurate to prevent possible
fraudulent use of the absentee ballot. As such the Court finds that the issuance of ABR’s
with prepopulated information would violate Iowa Code Section 53.2(4) as the identifying
information is not being provided by the voter. This conclusion is further supported by the
requirement that the County Auditor seek out the applicant to verify information if the
information is missing or incorrect on the ABR. Iowa Code Section 53.2(4)(b). This
clearly shows that the legislature expected this information to come from the voter and
Next the Defendants contend that the Plaintiff request for relief should be denied
as the Plaintiffs have failed to show an injury and/or irreparable damage from the
Defendant’s failure to comply with the Secretary of State’s emergency directive. The
Plaintiff asserts that the injury they will suffer if an injunction is not granted is that they will
be forced to run a different type of campaign in Woodbury County than the rest of the
State and that the integrity of the election itself will be put into question. The Iowa
Legislature in enacting Section 53.2 has crafted the procedures to be followed in using
17
E-FILED 2020 AUG 28 5:29 PM WOODBURY - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
absentee ballots in Iowa and what safeguards should be employed to help prevent the
possibility of fraud in the use of ABR forms and absentee ballots. As part of this, as stated
above, the legislature requires the voter to provide their identifying information to help
ensure that the absentee ballots end up in the hands of the voters requesting the same.
What the Defendants want the Plaintiffs to be required to do is to prove that fraud has
already occurred before they can establish their injury. From a practical perspective, once
fraud has occurred it will already likely be too late. While the Defendants claim that voter
fraud with absentee ballots is almost nonexistent, it is also the type of fraud that is almost
impossible to detect. Sending out ABR’s with all the information that a person that intends
to commit fraud would need certainly does not limit the likelihood of fraud taking place,
but would likely help to facilitate it. As such the Plaintiffs would certainly need to expend
a great deal more effort to try to detect fraud then they otherwise would have to if blank
forms were used as directed by the Secretary of State and as is required by implication
by Section 53.2(4). The Plaintiffs have shown that they will suffer injury and irreparable
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden of
establishing that the Defendant did violate the Emergency Election Directive of the Iowa
Secretary of State Section 53.2(4). The Court further finds that it is likely that the Plaintiffs
will succeed on the merits at final hearing and that they will suffer irreparable harm if an
Having so found, the Court still must balance the harm sought to be avoided by
the Plaintiffs against the harm that the issuance of an injunction might cause. There is
no doubt that the issuance of the injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiffs will cause harm
18
E-FILED 2020 AUG 28 5:29 PM WOODBURY - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
to the voters of Woodbury County who have already sent in their ABR forms based on
the pre-populated forms sent out by the Defendant. The Defendant will have to incur
significant expense to mail out new information to the voters who received the previous
mailing with the pre-populated ABR’s and will have to explain the need to send a new
ABR form to obtain an absentee ballot. This will create confusion with some voters and
will likely result in some voters not receiving an absentee ballot. The cost of these
remedial efforts are brought on the Defendant by the Defendants own actions and as
such should not be a basis to deny the Plaintiff their requested relief. The impact on
While there are certainly very good reasons for why people will want to vote by
absentee ballot in light of the ongoing COVID situation in addition to all the traditional
reasons why persons want to vote absentee, if certain voters do not understand or request
a new absentee ballot, their ability to vote has not been prevented. They still have the
opportunity to vote in person on election-day or anytime during the early voting period.
While this certainly can create hardship with their ability to vote by absentee ballot, it will
not prevent them from still being able to vote by absentee ballot or in-person. This has
to be balanced against the fact that the Plaintiffs are attempting to enforce valid election
law and procedures upon which the entire integrity of the election process is based. If
the integrity of the election is thrown into question, certainly the value of each individual
voter’s vote is thrown into question as well. The Court is not swayed by either sides’
argument that they will have to devote additional resources into Woodbury County as a
result of the Court’s decision herein. In either case the extra resources that will be
expended would help to reduce the potential harm created. By expending more
19
E-FILED 2020 AUG 28 5:29 PM WOODBURY - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
resources in Woodbury County the Plaintiffs may be more likely to discover the fraud they
are concerned about, while at the same time, the devotion of additional resources by the
intervenors will certainly minimize the likelihood that persons who want to vote by
The Defendant has knowingly violated the lawful directive of the Iowa Secretary of
State in issuing the pre-populated ABR forms in this case. Such action as well as the
irreparable nature of the injury that has been caused warrants the issuance of a temporary
injunction herein.
Regarding the requirement of a bond under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.508, a
court is to require the Plaintiff to post a bond which shall be 125 percent of the probable
liability to be incurred by the Defendant to pay any damages that might be sustained by
reason of the injunction. The Defendant requests that the bond be set at $1,000,000 in
light of the size of the costs he will incur to comply with the law. This request is somewhat
concerning to the Court because it suggests that the Defendant without the entry of this
injunction, would refuse to comply with Section 53.2(4) requiring him to verify voter
information on the ABR’s that are submitted with missing or incorrect information. The
Defendants affidavit states that the primary reason he sent out the pre-populated ABR’s
to begin with was to avoid the costs associated with Section 53.2(4). The costs to the
Defendant from the issuance of the injunction should be limited to the costs of obtaining
new blank ABR forms to mail, the preparation of a letter explaining to the voters of
Woodbury County why the prior mailing will not result in the issuance of absentee ballot
to them along with cancelling the ABR’s received from the improper mailing. All other
costs incurred by the Defendant will be as a result of his required compliance with Iowa
20
E-FILED 2020 AUG 28 5:29 PM WOODBURY - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
Code Section 53.2(4). The only specific information provided by the Defendant in this
regard is that it will cost “at least $20,000” to send out the new mailing. Accordingly the
Court will set the Plaintiff’s bond at 125% of this figure or $25,000.
is granted.
1. That the Defendant shall obey the July 17, 2020 directive of the Iowa Secretary
of State in full;
2. That the Defendant shall obey all other lawful orders or directives of the Iowa
Secretary of State;
3. That the Defendant shall with respect to any prepopulated ABR forms returned
to his office: a) contact the sender in writing to inform the sender that the prepopulated
ABR form should not have been sent in the form provided by the Defendant; b) inform the
sender that the Defendant is unable to act on the prepopulated ABR form; and c) invite
the sender to submit an ABR in the form prescribed by the Iowa Secretary of State.
Defendant, his employees and any third party under the Defendant’s control.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk issue the temporary writ of injunction
21
E-FILED 2020 AUG 28 5:29 PM WOODBURY - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
So Ordered