Gov. Kim Reynolds must comply with public records law, Iowa Supreme Court rules

A lawsuit accusing Gov. Kim Reynolds of failing to follow Iowa's public records law can continue, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday, saying the governor's office can be sued just like any other public entity for not producing requested documents in a timely way.

The decision came in a lawsuit filed in December 2021 by three plaintiffs represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, who accused Reynolds' office of "stonewalling" public records requests, in some cases for more than a year.

Journalists Laura Belin of the Bleeding Heartland politics blog and Clark Kauffman of the Iowa Capital Dispatch, along with Iowa Freedom of Information Council Executive Director Randy Evans, asked the court to find Reynolds' office in violation of Iowa's public records law. They also asked the court to order the governor to turn over the requested records and refrain from future delays.

Previously: Iowa argues open-records law not 'well-recognized' policy

The governor's office turned over some of the records after the lawsuit was filed and asked the district court to dismiss the case as moot. But the judge declined, and Reynolds appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.

In her appeal, Reynolds argued not only that the case is now moot, but that Iowa's public records law does not set any timeliness requirement for responding to requests. Even if there was such a time limit, she contended, it would not apply to her as head of the executive branch since the courts lack authority to decide "political questions" such as how the governor's staff prioritizes its duties.

The plaintiffs, in response, argued that the case remains active because Reynolds has not provided all of the requested records and that her office is subject to the same timeliness requirements as any other government entity.

Supreme Court allows lawsuit to proceed

In its decision Friday, the court — with all participating justices joining Justice David May's opinion — found that Reynolds' failure to respond to numerous records requests, or even to affirmatively deny them, violated both the letter and the intent of the Legislature's open records law.

"An interpretation (of the statute) that requires timely production promotes 'free and open examination of public records,'" May wrote. "An interpretation that condones unlimited delay would hamper the 'free and open examination of public records.'"

In support of the importance of public access, May cited a 2013 law review article by now Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, then counsel to Gov. Terry Branstad, who wrote that "providing information quickly and efficiently demystifies government." Bird, elected attorney general in November, is defending the governor in the lawsuit. Her office did not respond to a request for comment.

More: Bill to limit Iowa auditor could leave $12B in funding unchecked, nonpartisan agency says

While the court declined to order Reynolds to provide documents she already has produced, the decision sends the case back to district court to continue, with instructions for the judge there to consider whether the plaintiffs are entitled to other forms of relief, such as attorney fees.

It also directed the district judge to take up the plaintiffs' claims that Reynolds' production of records after the suit was filed wrongly excluded some documents as confidential.

Reynolds attributes delays to pandemic

Reynolds' office issued a statement responding to the ruling, saying the delays in fulfilling records requests were a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, with which her office was preoccupied at the time.

“The initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic consumed every aspect of our daily lives, and accordingly my office shifted its entire focus to help Iowans navigate that difficult period," she said. "During that time, there was an unprecedented number of open records requests and many of those went unfulfilled for a period. While we disagree that this lawsuit should continue, my office has eliminated the backlog of open records requests and is committed to upholding our responsibility to respond to any new requests in a timely manner.”

But ACLU of Iowa attorney Thomas Story said in a statement that the pandemic also raised matters of "great importance" on which the public was entitled to answers. Friday's decision, he said, "has put our state government on notice" of its obligations under the law.

"An effective democracy is transparent and responsive to its people. It does not hide its work and it does not ignore the press," he said. "We are pleased with this decision and its impact on the rights of all Iowans to access information."

Can governor be sued for lateness?

The court also addressed Reynolds' argument that suing her office raises constitutional concerns. In appellate filings, her office argued that in hearing the case, "The court would be asked to decide whether the time spent by the Governor and her staff in relation to the time working on plaintiffs’ record requests was reasonable."

It said that is a political question that's beyond the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.

The court rejected that argument. May noted that the plaintiffs need only prove Reynolds "refused to make those government records available," and that it is up to her to decide whether and how to defend against those claims, including arguing that her staff was too busy with other tasks.

Even if she does want to raise that as a defense, and believes disclosing such information infringes on the privileges of the executive branch, May wrote, that's no cause to reject the case entirely. District judges deal with privilege questions all the time, he wrote, and "we trust that they will do so if such issues arise in this case or others like it."

Plaintiffs: Public has need, right to know

In filing the lawsuit, the plaintiffs emphasized the public's interest in having complete and timely access to public records and information.

Although Friday's ruling is a victory for them, journalists should not need to resort to the courts to gain compliance with public records law, Iowa Capital Dispatch Editor-in-Chief Kathie Obradovich said in a statement included in the publication's article about the decision.

“It shouldn’t take a lawsuit to gain access to public documents,” Obradovich said. “It’s important for the media and therefore the people of Iowa to receive this important information in a timely manner, especially during a public health crisis.”

Belin, of Bleeding Heartland, said in a statement released by the ACLU that Reynolds' actions set a bad standard for the rest of state government.

"When the governor's staff ignore records requests for months on end, sometimes for more than a year, it sends a message that complying with the Open Records law is optional," she said. "Unfortunately, even though Governor Reynolds ended the public health emergency more than a year ago, some state entities still delay for months before responding to public records requests."

Iowa Capitol Press Association President Erin Murphy, the Des Moines bureau chief for the Cedar Rapids Gazette, called the ruling “a victory for all Iowans."

"The Court’s ruling affirms the state law that declares government officials must respond to requests for certain records in a timely fashion," Murphy said in a statement. "As the Court says, condoning an unlimited delay in government response would hamper the free and open examination of public records. The Iowa Capitol Press Association is pleased with the Court’s ruling as we continue to advocate for policies that encourage transparency and access to Iowans’ government.”

William Morris covers courts for the Des Moines Register. He can be contacted at wrmorris2@registermedia.com, 715-573-8166 or on Twitter at @DMRMorris.

This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Iowa Supreme Court rules against Kim Reynolds in public records case