CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/31/2023 1

Application of Election Law to a Straw Poll 

Schulz v. Iowa (James E. Gritzner, S.D. Iowa 4:07-cv-350) 

An eight-plaintiff pro se federal complaint challenged the participation fee for Iowa State University’s Republican straw poll for the 

2008 presidential election, which was to be held two days after the 

complaint was filed. On the afternoon before the poll, the district 

judge denied the plaintiffs immediate relief from the bench after a 

hearing. The court of appeals affirmed the decision, on the day of 

the poll. 

Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Pro se party; equal 

protection; interlocutory appeal. 

Eight plaintiffs filed a pro se federal complaint in the Southern District of 

Iowa on August 9, 2007, two days before the Republican Party’s straw poll at 

Iowa State University in Ames for the 2008 presidential election.1

 The plaintiffs alleged that the $35 participation fee was an unconstitutional poll tax, 

and they alleged improprieties in the voting equipment.2

 The complaint included requests for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, 

and a permanent injunction.3

Judge James E. Gritzner set the case for hearing on August 10.4 At the 

hearing, he informed the lead plaintiff how he would accommodate the 

plaintiff’s pro se status: 

THE COURT: Our small amount of research that we’ve been able to do 

in the short time since we learned that you were on the premises has told us 

that while you are not a lawyer you appear to be a frequent litigator, so you 

have some experience in court, and so we’ll cut kind of a middle ground as 

to how forgiving we are for a pro se litigant in terms of what we expect from 

you, Mr. Schulz.5

At 3:15 on the day before the straw poll, Judge Gritzner ruled from the 

bench and denied the plaintiffs immediate relief.6

 An order and opinion followed on the following day.7

 

The Court is aware of no constitutional right to participate in the details 

of a non-binding poll hosted by a private political party . . . . 

. . . The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the purchase price to 

attend an event hosted by a private political party, in which individuals in 

1. Complaint, Schulz v. Iowa, No. 4:07-cv-350 (S.D. Iowa Aug. 9, 2007), D.E. 1. 

2. Id. 

3. Id. at 21–23. 

4. Docket Sheet, id. (Aug. 9, 2007). 

5. Transcript at 4, id. (Aug. 10, 2007, filed Aug. 13, 2007), D.E. 14. 

6. Id. at 61–65. 

7. Opinion, id. (Aug. 10, 2007), D.E. 10; Minutes, id. (Aug. 10, 2007), D.E. 9; see Jennifer 

Jacobs, Judge Keeps Straw Poll’s Computerized Voting Machines, Des Moines Register, Aug. 

11, 2007, at A6. 
Application of Election Law to a Straw Poll 

2 Federal Judicial Center 8/31/2023 

attendance can participate in a vote that has no binding effect on a public 

affair (such as an election) constitutes a “poll tax.”8

With respect to equipment defects, “If the Plaintiffs entered into this alleged contract knowing the terms of the contract, they cannot now claim the 

contract has been breached merely because they find some terms of the contract distasteful.”9

The plaintiffs filed a notice of interlocutory appeal after the hearing,10

and on the following day, the day of the straw poll, the court of appeals affirmed Judge Gritzner’s decision.11 The parties stipulated dismissal of the action on September 27.12

8. Opinion, supra note 7, at 8–9. 

9. Id. at 9. 

10. Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, Schulz, No. 4:07-cv-350 (S.D. Iowa Aug. 10, 2007), 

D.E. 11. 

11. Judgment, Schulz v. Iowa, No. 07-2889 (8th Cir. Aug. 11, 2007). 

Having concluded that the judgment of the district court is based on findings of 

fact that are not clearly erroneous, that no error of law appears and that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion, the order of the district court denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed. 

Id. 

12. Joint Motion, Schulz, No. 4:07-cv-350 (S.D. Iowa Sept. 27, 2007), D.E. 21.