The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled in the first review of whether state lawmakers have immunity when it comes to releasing information on their discussions.
The League of Latin American Citizens of Iowa (LULAC) served subpoenas on several legislators seeking copies of communications they had related to changes in the state voting law. LULAC wants the information for its lawsuit that claims the changes were unconstitutional and meant to discriminate against some voters. Lawmakers argued they are protected by a legislative privilege under the Iowa Constitution.
A Polk County District Judge found legislators have privilege, but held that the privilege is qualified and that it must give way to LULAC’s interests in this case where the privilege’s underlying purposes are outweighed by a compelling, competing interest. The court found that discovery into individual legislators’ intent is “highly relevant” to LULAC’s First Amendment claim, which challenges the law-making process itself by alleging the election laws were enacted to impose unjustified barriers on Latino voters’ ability to vote and participate in the political process.
The Iowa Supreme Court says an individual legislator’s intent is not relevant to LULAC’s claims at this point in the case. The Supreme Court says legislators do have a privilege to not reveal the information in this case, but stop short of saying the legislative privilege is absolute.
LULA is challenging the provisions that shorten the time for voters to register, shorten the time to request and send absentee ballots, alter ballot receipt deadlines, limit who can
return absentee ballots on behalf of another, and reduce polling place hours on election day, among other changes.
Here’s the full Supreme Court ruling: LULAC ruling PDF