The Iowa Public Information Board
COMES NOW, Johnathon T. Harris, Staff Attorney for the Iowa Public Information Board (“IPIB”), and enters this Investigative Report:
On August 12, 2026, Christine Antinori (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 26FC:0220, alleging the Iowa Secretary of State Election Office violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
The IPIB accepted this complaint on September 17, 2026.
Facts
Complainant's complaint arose from a public records request for a nomination petition. The request was made in July; the actual date of the request is not present in the record. At the time the complaint was filed, the request had not been fulfilled. On August 14, 2026, IPIB staff acknowledged the complaint and began facial review. On August 18, 2026, Complainant reached out to IPIB staff to provide additional information. In that email Complainant stated "On August 12, 2026 I received a voicemail from a [name], of the Iowa Secretary of State's office. … It was stated that for all election related filings in which the deadline for an objection has passed, a FOIA needed to be submitted. This communication assumed that I requested public records to review in consideration of an objection of a candidate's eligibility to be on the ballot. This is both a false assumption and a further denial of due process. On August 14, I received both voice mail messages and email from [name], a staff attorney with the Iowa Secretary of State. After verifying my request, she sent me the public record I originally requested mid-July. This satisfied my request for this public record. I wish to have my complaint reviewed regardless. The amount of time from my original request, absence of a timely response, direction to file a FOIA, and the perception of my intent appeared to all be contributing factors in stonewalling my request."
IPIB staff followed up to clarify whether the responsive record had been produced and if Complainant's complaint was now limited to the delay in production. Complainant responded, "I've received the record requested. One Nomination Petition encompassed my request. The delay in their response and inconsistency with Iowa Law is now the premise of my request. I had been told by Iowa SOS staff previously that I needed to come in person to review documents as opposed to being able to request them in writing. There appears to be a consistent pattern of withholding and inaccurate direction on record requests."
Because Complainant stated a claim that was jurisdictional and a potential violation, the case was opened for investigation and a response was requested from Respondent. Respondent provided a response on September 2, 2026. Respondent provided a similar but slightly different timeline of its actions. Respondent stated on August 6, 2026, it received the public records request through its call center. Respondent stated that on August 12, 2026, Complainant called the call center again about her request, to which Respondent requested she send an email to clarify her request. That was the same day Complainant filed the present action. On August 14, 2026, Respondent stated it received a communication from the Office of the Ombudsman stating that Complainant alleged she had been trying to reach the office for weeks, regarding which Respondent stated it had no record of calls from Complainant's number during that period. Respondent stated it called and left a voicemail with Complainant on August 14 because Complainant had not sent in the email that had been previously requested. Respondent stated Complainant called back that day, clarified the request, and that the record was produced to Complainant that same day. Respondent stated it did not receive notice of this complaint until 11 days after the records had already been produced.
Complainant responded to some questions posed by IPIB staff after IPIB staff had received Respondent's statement. Complainant stated that the earliest record she has on this issue is from July 17; however, she does not have the original email message.
Applicable Law
“Once a party seeking judicial enforcement of this chapter demonstrates to the court that the defendant is subject to the requirements of this chapter, that the records in question are government records, and that the defendant refused to make those government records available for examination and copying by the plaintiff, the burden of going forward shall be on the defendant to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this chapter.” Iowa Code § 22.10(2).
“[W]hen a court evaluates whether a plaintiff has carried its burden under section 22.10(2), the relevant questions are: (1) Is the defendant “subject to the requirements of” chapter 22?; (2) Did the plaintiff ask for “government records”?; and (3) Has “the defendant refused to make those government records available” for the plaintiff? Iowa Code § 22.10(2). The third element can be established either through an express refusal or through an implicit refusal. Extensive delay may—on its own—establish an implicit refusal.” Belin v. Reynolds, 989 N.W.2d 166 (Iowa 2023).
Analysis
To begin, there is no hard deadline or number of days that automatically makes a delay in production unreasonable. It is a fact-based analysis.
A delay is unreasonable when it functions as an implied refusal. See Belin v. Reynolds, 989 N.W.2d 166 (Iowa 2023). "Factors considered in whether a delay was reasonable include whether the government promptly acknowledged the initial request, whether there was any communication or explanation about expected delays, whether the government produced records as they became available ("rolling production"), and whether updates were provided to alert the requester to new developments which would change the predicted production date." Chapter 22 Frequently Asked Questions, IPIB, (2026) https://ipib.iowa.gov/public-records/chapter-22-frequently-asked-questions-0. Here Respondent stated it only became aware of the request on August 6, 2026, called and spoke to Complainant multiple times, requested clarification, and, based on the slightly conflicting timelines, ultimately produced the record within a maximum period of around a month. Respondent's actions here do not represent an implied refusal of production, and therefore the delay was not unreasonable.
A separate issue raised by Complainant related to the misunderstanding by Respondent as to the nature of her request, and the "direction to file a FOIA." However, these are similarly not violations. It appears from Complainant's statements that Respondent might have initially thought that the Complainant was filing an appeal of a nomination petition instead of a public records request. Even if that did occur, Respondent took the correct actions by seeking clarification and, upon realizing it was dealing with a records request instead of an appeal, directing Complainant to submit a public records request. This is the type of process IPIB encourages when a governmental body receives requests that are not clear or where the government is unsure.
Therefore, because Respondent's actions did not constitute an implied refusal to produce the requested records, there is insufficient evidence to find a violation occurred.
IPIB Action
The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of a probable cause report:
a. Redirect the matter for further investigation;
b. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;
c. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or
d. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceeding.
Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4).
Recommendation
Because there is insufficient evidence to show unreasonable delay, there is insufficient evidence to find probable cause that a violation of Chapter 22 occurred. Therefore, it is recommended the Board dismiss for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.
By the IPIB Staff Attorney:
_________________________
Johnathon T. Harris, J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent on September 11, 2026, to:
Christine Antinori, Complainant
Emily Russell-Stone, Attorney for Respondent
The Iowa Public Information Board
Under Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4) the Board takes the following action:
☐a. Redirect the matter for further investigation;
☒b. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;
☐c. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or
☐d. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceeding.
By the Board Chair
___________________________________
Catherine Lucas
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent on September 17, 2026, to:
Christine Antinori, Complainant
Emily Russell-Stone, Attorney for Respondent