Letter to the Editor: "In something as fundamental as what votes count, there must be consistency"

Posted: Tue, Jan 15, 2019 4:34 PM

(The following Letter to the Editor has been submitted by Lyle Luzum of Decorah):

"Dear Election Contest committee,

As a citizen of the contested legislative district you are dealing with (Koether/Bergan), I offer what I consider to be the fundamental issue: Was the purpose of the law (allowing bar codes in addition to postmarks) to CREATE potential inequity of representative voice or simply to allow for new technologies to determine a vote's validity?

When the legislature approved using the bar code option in addition to postmarks, it was not made mandatory, leaving the option to local authorities. Sounds like a simple solution, but it turned out not to be so. I suggest our situation was an unintended consequence that has resulted in voter disenfranchisement and inequality of representative voice. Plus it puts honest county officials in an unwarranted pickle. This issue is not about them.

The courts have said this is a legislative issue. You created the law. You have been given the responsibility to interpret its meaning vs its result. It gets to the INTENT of the law.

Here is the issue: Did the legislature INTEND to create a system whereby the method of discerning the will of the people within an electoral boundary is inconsistent, depending wholly on which county a person resides in? That was the result in our case, and could be the case in virtually any race in which the resulting count margin is less than the number of ballots in contention. And it could affect either party at any time. This is NOT about protecting a small margin or reversing it in the interest of any party. It is about inequity of representative voice and whether that was an intended result of the legislation.

If you decide that it is OK for the votes within this race to be counted based on different criteria, you are saying that creating opportunity for such inequity was an INTENT of that legislation, thereby setting a precedent legitimizing unequal voice within a district based solely on geography. This would seem unprecedented, at least in the modern era, in Iowa. Supporting that position would require maneuvers fit for a linguistic contortionist. In something as fundamental as what votes count, there must be consistency, especially with a single race. And it is as important for Republicans as for Democrats. Razor-thin margins hold no political affiliation and can strike at any time. Clarity and equity of voice are paramount to Democracy. You know that. This should be the base-line agreement for us all.

Solution(s): Ask the sponsors and those who voted for that bill. Is that what they intended? Or simply rule the obvious -- that it was not the intent of the law, and require vote count consistency and equity in this case. And then change the law to establish such a system before the next election cycle.

I urge citizens to contact these key legislators prior to Wednesday afternoon:

Steven Holt (R): Steven.Holt@legis.iowa.gov

Jon Jacobsen (R): Jon.Jacobsen@legis.iowa.gov

Matt Windschitl (R): matt.windschitl@legis.iowa.gov

Brian Meyer (D): brian.meyer@legis.iowa.gov

Mary Wolfe (D): mary.wolfe@legis.iowa.gov

Iowa House Speaker Linda Upmeyer (R): linda.upmeyer@legis.iowa.gov

The Capital Phone for all representatives is (515) 281-3221. Ask for that Representative."