Miller-Meeks, Zaun pile onto Trump’s suit against Register pollster

In 2024, Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks encored her razor-thin margin from 2020. Despite winning, she’s calling foul and blaming a poll that didn’t mention her name.

No one is more aware of her elections’ tight margins than US Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks. Her district’s ambivalence toward her in 2024 was only matched by its ambivalence in 2020. In an early appearance on Capitol Hill, she wore a face mask featuring a large number six referencing the six votes that put her ahead in 2020. 

“Landslide” Miller-Meeks’ squeakers have become a bit of a joke, even among colleagues. But Miller-Meeks isn’t laughing. She’s now blaming a single poll for her 0.02% win. 

Miller-Meeks and former state Sen. Brad Zaun—who actually lost his seat—have joined former President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against pollster J. Ann Selzer; her company; the Des Moines Register; and its parent company Gannett. In the complaint refiled at the end of January in US District Court for Southern District of Iowa, lawyers alleged the poll was an act of “brazen election interference,” that it violated consumer fraud protections.

This poll in question came out on Nov. 2. And it shocked the nation, claiming former Vice President Kamala Harris would win Iowa by 3 percentage points. But not all the glitters is gold. By the final tally, Trump’s actual landslide had him ahead 13.3 percentage points—far from the flip described by poll respondents. 

Selzer, who retired shortly after the election following a 35-year career, has denied any intentional manipulation. The Des Moines Register’s spokesperson maintains the newspaper “stands by our reporting” despite acknowledging the poll “did not reflect actual results.”

Miller-Meeks, who won reelection by 799 votes, points to Selzer’s poll showing the “Republican” trailing the “Democrat” in her race by  16 points. Per her explanation, the poll, which was published well after campaign teams were established and the majority of money was raised, “fueled” Democratic momentum that tightened the race.

The suit cites analysis from the New York-based far right think tank Manhattan Institute, which claimed that because the poll was outside of the margin of error it was evidently the result of skullduggery on the part of the defendants. The lawsuit goes on to claim that it was statistically unlikely for the poll to be wrong across the races it surveyed. But it seems the simplest explanation eluded lawyers.

Say what you will about The Iowa Poll’s numerous whiffs, they were across the board:

• Poll put Harris ahead of Trump by 3 percentage points. Trump won Iowa by 13.3 points.
• Poll put a Democrat ahead by 16 points in the 1st District. Miller-Meeks won the district by 0.2% points. 
• Poll put a Republican ahead by 3 points in the 2nd District. Republican US Rep. Ashley Hinson won the district by 15.5 points.
• Poll put a Democrat ahead by 7 points in the 3rd District. Republican US Rep. Zach Nunn won the district by 3.8 points.
• Poll put a Republican ahead by 16 points in the 4th District. US Rep. Randy Feenstra won the district by 34.4 points.

Note that for congressional races, the Iowa Poll used generalized candidates from either party, not named candidates. Miller-Meeks was not mentioned. Zaun’s race was a local legislative one, not covered by the poll. This has been a common criticism of the results validity for these non-presidential races. 

Iowa congressional districts as of 2023. (Ballotpedia/Canva)

You could say the poll was precise in its misses. Had there been race margins it called correctly, that might suggest selective use of data on the part of the pollster. But that’s not what we see above. If survey data skewed towards Democrats even after weighting, that speaks to the issue with the survey data, not the analysis.

Instead what we have is a pollster with a sterling reputation—one who predicted Trump’s victories in Iowa in 2016 and 2020 as well as former President Barack Obama’s in 2008. A pollster who further acknowledged she got it wrong and explained her methodology following the election, offering theories on what went wrong.

Seltzer’s final poll may have yielded no fruit. But to call it “election interference” ignores how Iowa law evaluates these cases. The poll did not encourage illegal voting or the counterfeiting of official ballots, both of which are key questions under Iowa law. They simply published a poll as they have for years. 

Every election has outlier polls. To prosecute this one under consumer fraud laws would require Miller-Meeks to show how Selzer used a fraudulent statement to solicit contributions or to sell merchandise. Which hasn’t come up in the filings yet. 

Trump’s lawyers write that polling companies and news organizations “are responsible for accurately representing the truth of events.” And when the Register published the poll results—days before the election based on survey data and their own best practices—they had done just that. But winning the case may not be the point. 

If you view the lawsuit as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation or SLAPP suit, the point becomes about dampening free speech itself. A SLAPP suit is civil action against people or organizations who speak out on an issue of public interest or concern. They are often brought by businesses and government officials with economic or political interests in the issue. They are designed to intimidate the target, to discourage them from speaking on an issue for fear of an expensive legal battle. 

Even if the case doesn’t have merit, will legal action make Gannett too gun shy to continue its tradition of publishing the Iowa Poll? As right wing lawyers weaponize the courts against the free press, how does that dampen journalism’s work of government accountability?

Miller-Meeks stands alone among Iowa’s congressional delegation in joining Trump’s crusade, tweeting she was “proud” to sign on. Her victory may have defied Selzer’s odds, but at 799 votes, it hardly silenced the “Landslide” jokes. 

As Democrats eye favorable midterm conditions, Miller-Meeks seems more focused than ever on courting Trump’s favor in addressing her district’s ambivalence. Whatever punchline that election brings, don’t expect a laugh out Miller-Meeks either way.