Opinion ID: 4579372
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Plaintiffs’ Other Claims.

Text: The plaintiffs also allege the statute violates the Iowa Constitution’s equal protection clause. Iowa’s equal protection clause “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 878 (Iowa 2009) (quoting Racing Ass’n of Cent. Iowa v. Fitzgerald, 675 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 2004)). Under this line of attack, the plaintiffs argue similarly situated voters will be treated differently because the statute establishes no deadlines about how long a county auditor may wait after emailing or calling a voter about missing information before trying to contact the voter by mail. The plaintiffs offer no evidence that HF 2643 was intended to treat similarly situated voters differently. At some level, differences in auditor practices are inevitable. Some auditors may prefer the email contact; others the phone. In any event, variations in practices among county auditors’ offices do not, without more, create an equal protection violation. See In re Contest of Gen. Election, 767 N.W.2d 453, 465–66 (Minn. 2009)