♪♪ Election laws and security continue to be hot topics debated at the state and federal levels.

We'll discuss voter registration to vote counting and more with Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate on this edition of Iowa Press.

Funding for Iowa Press was provided by Friends, the Iowa PBS Foundation.

♪♪ The Associated General Contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building Iowa's highway, bridge and municipal utility infrastructure.

♪♪ Across Iowa, hundreds of neighborhood banks strive to serve their communities, provide jobs and help local businesses.

Iowa banks are proud to back the life you build.

Learn more at iowabankers.com.

♪♪ For decades, Iowa Press has brought you political leaders and newsmakers from across Iowa and beyond.

Celebrating more than 50 years on statewide Iowa PBS, this is the Friday, April 11th edition of Iowa Press.

Here is Kay Henderson.

♪♪ [Henderson] Our guest on this week's Iowa Press is a former state legislator.

He is the former Mayor of Cedar Rapids.

He served as Iowa's Secretary of State, that is the chief election officer in Iowa, in the late 1990s.

And then in 2014, he ran and won the seat back.

So, he has been Iowa's Secretary of State since 2015.

Welcome back to this table for a conversation today.

[Pate] Thank you, it's a pleasure to be here.

[Henderson] Also joining the conversation is Katarina Sostaric of Iowa Public Radio and Erin Murphy of the Gazette in Cedar Rapids.

[Murphy] Secretary Pate, the U.S. House this week passed legislation that deals with citizenship and voting and would require certain documents for voters to prove their citizenship.

There is also legislation moving at the state level, which you have been involved in negotiations on those.

I'm wondering how these different bills would affect your office and Iowa voters?

[Pate] Sure.

Much of it is parallel to what we're trying to do here right now.

We welcome any cooperation we can get from the federal government on making the process more seamless and much more fluid, if you will, when we try to apply it and administer it.

Right now, myself and my colleagues, the other secretaries of state, have been reaching out to Congress and to the President and the White House to try to offer insights on some of the proposals they have to let them know some of these are ones we could administer, others are a little tougher, and sometimes gently reminding that elections are run by the states and we want to make sure we don't cross that line.

[Murphy] So, where are those concerns specifically?

[Pate] Well, I think part of it is more technical in some respects.

States do some things differently whether they are DOT, for example, if drivers licenses are able to put the information on there about citizenship.

Those are minor, but yet they are significant to be able to get it in place.

The discussions about whether or not they're going to require birth certificates to be brought in.

I personally prefer my approach, and that is one where we deal with all of this at the voter registration level rather than the day they are voting because then we can do it in a much more user-friendly approach.

So, I think there's some conversations and some common points.

[Murphy] And to that, I want to ask you about that too, because as you noted part of the bill deals with, as you said, on the front end of it at the voter registration point.

But there is also still a provision that at the polls allows poll workers to challenge a ballot if they have questions about -- [Henderson] And this is the state -- [Murphy] -- this is the state legislation.

Yeah, thank you.

If I can ask this, during the debate some of the concerns were raised about what that would look like and could that open up profiling by poll workers who might challenge a ballot just because someone might look to them like they're not U.S. citizens?

[Pate] Well, I respect that concern or that point.

But what they are not quite taking into consideration, they already have that authority.

Poll workers right now can ask you about citizenship.

They can ask you about citizenship, they can ask you about your identity, your address, are you a felon, those are all questions poll workers can ask right now.

What we were actually doing in the bill was trying to make it where they could actually remedy the situation to avoid having to do a provisional ballot right then and there.

So, it's not a new thing.

But I think it got twisted a little bit for political reasons and I think that is unfortunate.

But I do understand where people are coming from.

But we spent a lot of time on poll worker training and making sure that they understand the parameters of how they should handle it professionally.

[Murphy] I don't want to belabor this because we've got a lot to get to, but then what is guidance then to poll workers to what should they be challenging based on?

[Pate] Well, we give them the list.

We indicate to them if something, because they are neighbors, if they know something about a personal situation obviously, they should speak up to it.

If someone else has brought some information to them.

Those are the basic reasons why they might not.

Otherwise, they typically don't do a lot of that kind of challenging.

I can't really remember any instances where we've had a problem in the past on that front.

[Sostaric] So, last month you announced that 35 non-citizens had their votes counted in Iowa's 2024 general election and they have been referred to law enforcement.

How did this happen?

[Pate] Well, unfortunately because the federal government would not share their database with us when we kept asking for it, it put us in a place where we had to work from a list that could be outdated and that was the DOT's list we were using, the Department of Transportation.

We had like 2,100 names and those were self-reported.

People have to understand, this is people who said yes, I am a legal non-citizen here in the United States and they tell that to the DOT when they get an ID or a driver's license.

That is the information we cross checked against our voter registration database.

And we identified those 2,000 names at the time.

We recognized we didn't think that was probably the most current.

That is when we asked the Biden administration to share with us their most current list and they wouldn't do it.

Now, I will, I'm glad to say today we got the list and we have cross checked it and we narrowed it down to 200 names, 270 I think it is and that is 270 too many in my opinion.

And then, again, we're down to the 35 who were able to vote and they shouldn't have.

We were able to turn away five more.

So, there's 40 actually who did attempt to vote who were not citizens.

And what we're trying to do is put safeguards in now so that, again, on the registration side we will be able to deal with this much more effectively.

Doing it on Election Day at a polling site when you have thousands of people coming in to vote and you're trying to expedite the process is not ideal for trying to check on citizenship.

[Sostaric] And we're going to get to more questions about that list that you requested from the federal government.

But, as you mentioned, you determined now that there were 277 non-citizens registered to vote in Iowa.

But during the election you had poll workers challenge the ballots of more than 2,000 people.

So, how many eligible voters had their ballots thrown out as a result of being on that list?

[Pate] No one had a ballot thrown out for being on that list.

And we didn't challenge 2,000, we asked them to have these names in front of them to try to confirm their citizenship when they came in and if there was any question, they would vote provisional and we would sort it out after the Election Day.

That was our attempt, if you will, because we were limited by the fact the federal government wasn't giving us the list we needed at the time.

So, I'm pretty confident we did the best method we could at the time.

[Henderson] You and the Attorney General of Iowa have filed a lawsuit about not getting access to the list.

Now that there is no more Biden administration in the Trump administration, is the lawsuit moot?

[Pate] Well, we want to make sure we're moving along two parallel tracks so we can get the result.

We need to have that list.

I'm feeling very positive or confident we will get that list.

It's more than just having the list.

We actually got the list from the Trump administration but what we want now and need now is the way they format it.

I don't want to get too far in the weeds, but bottom line is they were giving it to the states with a special ID number, whereas we wanted it based on a Social Security number because non-citizens do get Social Security cards.

And we want that Social Security number because we don't want to confuse if you're John Smith of this John Smith or another John Smith and we feel good now that we're getting that cooperation.

[Henderson] Where is the investigation in terms of the people that you identified who registered to vote illegally and the 40 who cast ballots?

[Pate] They have been turned over to the Attorney General and DCI, our Department of Criminal Investigations.

They are pursuing those.

I've seen a couple come out so far.

[Henderson] So, people have been charged?

We have not heard that.

[Pate] There are people who are being charged.

I believe and I'll verify one at least has been shared publicly and there will be more coming out.

It does obviously take a while for DCI to get through that many names.

[Sostaric] Going back to the information that you requested from the federal government, some other states have gotten the SAVE system where they can check immigration status of voters or citizenship status of voters long before the 2024 election.

Why didn't Iowa just get that a long time ago and avoid all of this?

[Pate] They would not give it to us at the time because they felt that our legislature had not made it clear that we were authorized to have the list.

That was one of the things.

The other was not all states were getting it.

And when states were asking for it, it would take several months to even get it.

And then the way the list is formatted it takes a long time to cross check that against your entire voter registration list.

So, it was very cumbersome to put it mildly.

So, that was a frustration for us as well.

But when we identified or convinced them that we should be getting the list, we felt we should have had it before the November election and unfortunately, we didn't get it.

[Murphy] And that's why I presume then we're going to talk about some bills here.

That is one of the things that is in that bill is it makes clear that your office is authorized to have those lists now.

[Pate] That is correct.

And I've seen some reporting on it.

We're not really looking at hiring a private outside firm to do this.

We just need access to all lists whether it's Social Security's list, whether it's the Homeland Security list, whatever government entity if they've got a list, we'd like to have it so that we can keep our voter registration lists current, not just for citizenship but for everything in general.

People move.

We want to make sure we know where you're at so that we're not having a problem with double voting.

[Murphy] And I want to get to those bills.

But really quick before we move onto that, and I think Katarina was trying to lead into this earlier, do we know how many ballots were challenged at the polls under your directive that were not resolved?

Cured is the technical word.

[Pate] Right.

And to be honest about it we have tried to determine that as well.

Unfortunately, some counties chose a different approach on how they wanted to handle those provisionals.

Example, Polk County just took all provisionals so there was never any review.

They said yep, your vote counts.

So, I don't really have an accurate count to tell you how many.

I can tell you that I'm not aware of any of them that were turned away other than the five we caught, out of 40 that came into vote five we did catch and turned away.

[Murphy] Yeah, because obviously what we're getting at here, did anyone who was legally able to vote have a ballot that was challenged and never cured and then didn't get counted even though they were legally eligible?

[Pate] To the best of my knowledge, anyone who came in on Election Day and voted that was not the case.

There has been discussion about the early voting people who may have and then the fact that they didn't respond back to the auditor when they were reached because they may have been traveling or something else.

And that was unfortunate, but that happens in other ways.

We have people who vote absentee who fail to sign a ballot or some other errors on their ballot and they don't get counted.

[Murphy] Okay, so onto that legislation now.

One of the things that I know your office has been asking for ever since 2020 in that historically close congressional race here that republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks won, you've been asking for recount legislation, streamlining, providing some consistency.

There's another bill again this year.

There's been efforts before.

Is this one going to get to the finish line and does it do what you hoped it would?

[Pate] Well, it has passed the House.

The Senate now has it.

I think it's a good bill.

It addresses my main concerns and basically, I want uniformity.

Recounts should look the same no matter what county you're in, particularly when you're getting into congressional because it's the same race, just across a different county line.

And also making sure that the people who are doing the recounting are fully prepared for it.

And all the rules of the road, if you will, are clearly prescribed ahead of time so everyone knows what they are and there's no room for misinterpretation of those.

So yeah, I think it's a very good bill.

We've made great progress before on some of the recounts.

That's why I think the recounts we did this last election went fairly smoothly.

But we still know there's some others out there.

We're a bit polarized in elections.

We've got some that are really, really close and this keeps happening over and over and over.

So, I don't think it's going away, so we really want to make sure the recount thing is under control.

[Murphy] Well, and to that, and you mentioned the people who are actually doing the recounting, one of the things this bill does -- and this wasn't a proposal from your office, it came from the legislature -- it puts the county auditors and their staff as members of those boards instead of the current process.

Some auditors expressed a little bit of concern about that because it puts them in a position to maybe have to make some tough decisions when they are also elected offices.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Pate] Well, I respect that but I can tell you that having sat through a lot of recounts the auditors pretty much are the ones who do it, the recount board members tend to be more there as observers because the auditor is the one who actually processes the ballots, puts them through the tabulators, hands them the tally sheets.

So, they're really doing it right now.

The difference is you just have another set of eyes on the process.

So, I don't think that's a big change.

And I understand some of the auditors might be a little concerned, yeah it does put a little more pressure on them from that regard.

But this is a very serious thing when you're running elections and we need continuity from county to county and I want to make sure they're professionally trained to handle it.

We still have full transparency.

That was the thing I looked at the House bill when they did it.

There is full transparency.

People get to watch every step of the way and ask questions and both the candidates and the political parties can have people present there and I think that is important.

[Murphy] And the other thing real quick also didn't come from your office, it would say that a recount, a candidate can no longer request a recount unless the margin on Election Night is one percent or lower.

And then there's also a 50 vote count for smaller elections.

Is that okay?

Is that too strict in your view?

Or is that okay to limit that much?

[Pate] I think that is one of those issues that they're going to decide because it's a policy question.

I think that they were concerned that we didn't want to get caught up in a lot of frivolous recounts because it costs taxpayers money, obviously, and the public has a pretty significant demand on wanting to know who the winner is at 9:05 p.m., just something about it.

So, I think that puts a little pressure on the process too.

[Sostaric] There is this other big elections bill in the Iowa legislature that has been passed.

We already talked about the citizenship provisions in that.

But there's also a part of it that would make it harder to gain major party status and make it harder for those without major party status to get on the ballot.

Do you expect Iowans to see fewer options on their ballots following this bill being passed?

[Pate] I don't think it's going to change much on that front.

We've had a bit of a revolving door on the Libertarian Party coming in and out -- [Sostaric] Of major party status?

[Pate] Yeah, major party status.

That probably is something that will change somewhat.

But clearly the trend right now is that people are going for a political party.

Voter registration has demonstrated that.

The first time I can think of in my adult life used to be no party was the dominant party.

And it's no longer that way.

Republicans have more than the no party and the democrats.

So, the trend right now is a party identification, if you will.

But that doesn't mean you won't see some other changes as time goes on.

[Henderson] Maybe if our viewers aren't familiar with election law, but to gain major party status means you get to have a primary election, correct?

[Pate] Right.

[Henderson] Is there another advantage to it?

[Pate] Well, the idea that they would be established on the voter registration form and be identified.

That's the biggest one personally because that way whenever the League of Women Voters or anybody else is out doing voter registration drives your party's name is on the form.

I think that is probably a big plus.

[Sostaric] And then another part of this bill that you proposed is banning ranked choice voting.

No local governments in Iowa use ranked choice voting.

Why ban it now?

[Pate] Well, there are a lot of things we say you shouldn't do and home rule, some of the cities want to do things differently.

And as a former mayor I respect that.

But when it comes to elections, I'm concerned that we need to have continuity.

It's hard enough to get people to vote.

And to confuse them with a ranked choice voting process versus our normal election process I think is a recipe for disaster.

I also on a personal level I think people have a hard time relating with the fact that if I'm going in to vote I'm really voting for three people and hoping one of my three ends up getting it.

Talking to my colleagues in other states who have done home rule, or excuse me, who have done ranked choice voting it is very complicated, very hard to operate and administer.

You do not have election results right away.

And human error and things that come into play are much more relevant.

In fact, several jurisdictions have back and gotten rid of it because it was just not working for them as well.

But again, I think we want continuity, we want to make sure we don't confuse people.

We want to encourage the voters but we also want to make sure that they're not trying to okay, what am I filling in on this one?

[Sostaric] Could it save money on runoff elections?

[Pate] I don't believe so.

We don't have to do runoff elections.

I'm from Cedar Rapids, that's what we did there.

If you want to do a primary, excuse me I'm going to drink a little water here -- [Henderson] Well, while you're talking about that, in addition to that you're talking about runoffs and Iowa law requires the winners of primaries to have 35% support.

So, if no one does there is a nominating process.

Do both of those things needs to be addressed or eliminated?

[Pate] Well, the legislature has discussed doing some of that in the past.

They have discussed having city elections become partisan and school board elections become partisan.

I think there's a lot more conversation that has to happen on that one before they go that route.

But I think those are all options on the table.

[Henderson] Another element of this big election package that Katarina mentioned is something of a sore loser provision whereby if a candidate runs in a primary and loses, then they can't run in the general election under the banner of another party or as a no party voter.

Where did this come from?

[Pate] Well, apparently the legislature felt that it was something that they wanted to do.

It didn't come off of my wish list, if you will.

[Henderson] Other states have this.

[Pate] Sure, sure.

And I just think it's probably one of those that they figure how many bites of the apple do you give somebody?

If they ran as a candidate and weren't successful, that was their bite at the apple.

And they figure it's time to move on to the fall election, if you will.

And I think that is probably one of the contributing points in that conversation.

[Murphy] Let's go back to analysis of the past election too.

The last time you were on this show it was before the election and we asked you what you thought would be the impact of the changes in early voting laws?

In past legislative cycles, the short version is that the window has been shrunk significantly and some other changes too.

And you said at the time that this would be the test, this upcoming election, to see how that goes.

So, let's find out how did it go in your view?

Were Iowans who wanted to vote early able to do that?

[Pate] I think they were.

It was a little different than I think any of us would have anticipated.

They were voting early but not by mail.

They were coming out in person.

We saw the lines around the Polk County Auditor's Office, I did every morning when I was going to the Capitol.

I'm going, these were people who were inspired to go, don't wait until Election Day, go now and do it.

[Murphy] And don't trust if you use the mail that it will get there in time, right?

There was a lot of conversation around that.

[Pate] Yes.

So, I think that was probably a shift.

It's here to stay.

We can talk all day long about whether you want to vote early whether that's in person early voting or by mail.

When you start seeing over 60 some percent of the people that is how they have chosen to vote, it's going to be there.

But you still have a very solid base who want to vote, it's a traditional process.

And I always equate it with it's like owning a restaurant and you have a menu and you have your favorite food items.

Well, there's always somebody who wants you to add something to that food menu and at a certain point you can only do so much.

And that's where we're at now.

We have to be real sensitive to what else we do in elections to be able to service our constituents.

But we've got to do it right.

And so, I'm real sensitive to how we go forward now.

But I'm pretty comfortable that the early voting is working well for us.

My job and my colleagues in the counties jobs is to continue to remind people of the deadlines so they can be successful.

[Murphy] We've just got a couple of minutes left.

Real quick on that, do we know how many ballots came in after the deadline through the mail that weren't able to be counted because of that?

[Pate] I don't have that number.

I don't really think it was that much.

But again, I don't have my hard numbers on it.

People are pretty good about watching those deadlines.

The bigger challenge is that people just didn't think about the mail service.

It does take more than overnight.

[Sostaric] The Trump administration has put federal election cybersecurity programs on hold.

How would it affect Iowa's election security if those were to go away?

[Pate] It would be pretty serious and we've had conversations with them on that regard.

And the feedback I'm getting is that we will see continuing some type of security support.

They are reformatting it and of course I'm waiting anxiously to find out what that looks like.

But we do count on a lot of those cyber protections.

We partner with the state, the other state agencies, the federal agencies as well and I would really not want to see that go away.

[Sostaric] And President Trump signed an executive order on voting and part of it seeks to give DOGE access to state voter information.

Would you be okay with that?

[Pate] It's public information anyway.

So, yeah, if they want to access it.

I get FOIA's every day, Freedom of Information Act, from other groups wanting certain information.

[Murphy] They're not asking for anything beyond what is already public?

[Pate] Correct.

In fact, pretty much everything is public.

There's not much we don't share other than for your viewers, they don't know how you voted.

But they will know if you voted and when you voted.

[Henderson] Paul Pate, your name has been on the ballot for the state House of Representatives, the state Senate, for Secretary of State, you ran for Governor at one point, you ran for Cedar Rapids Mayor.

Will your name be on the 2026 ballot?

[Pate] Well, you know, as long as my wife is willing to support me and my family, it makes it a lot easier to do this job.

But I enjoy the opportunity to serve the state and I hope I can continue to do just that.

[Henderson] Just one final question about cyber security.

Iowa's tabulating is not online.

So, why do we need cyber security?

[Pate] Well, we want to make sure the voter registration database is secure as well because there's always a bad actor out there who wants to show they're the smartest.

And we have foreign adversaries who continue to try to bombard both our election side and our business services side.

Thousands a day try to gain entry, so we have to keep our defenses up on a regular basis.

[Henderson] Well, thank you for sharing your views today on this edition of Iowa Press.

[Pate] Thank you.

[Henderson] You can watch every episode of Iowa Press at iowapbs.org.

For everyone here at Iowa PBS, thanks for watching today.

♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ Funding for Iowa Press was provided by Friends, the Iowa PBS Foundation.

The Associated General Contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building Iowa's highway, bridge and municipal utility infrastructure.

♪♪ Across Iowa, hundreds of neighborhood banks strive to serve their communities, provide jobs and help local businesses.

Iowa banks are proud to back the life you build.

Learn more at iowabankers.com.