Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Petition Validity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clive committee pauses after hours of testimony in dispute over special-election petition
Summary
An objection committee in Clive heard hours of public testimony on whether a citizen petition for a special election met state requirements, including disputes over when signatures were gathered, whether signers were eligible, claims of omissions in how petitions were solicited, and a petitioners— request that a council member recuse himself for social-media bias; the committee voted to continue the hearing to a later date.
The Clive City objection committee recessed without ruling on Thursday after hearing more than two hours of testimony and written submissions about a citizen petition seeking a special election to fill a council vacancy.
Mayor Don Edwards, acting as chair, convened the committee and received a written objection filed by Brad Clark that contends the petition contains misrepresentations or omissions and that not enough valid signatures were gathered to meet the statutory threshold. City Clerk Matthew Bram told the committee the petitioners submitted 591 signatures but that the statutory minimum cited in the hearing for Clive—s electorate is 321 valid signatures.
Petition organizers, led by resident organizer Llaya Star, defended the circulation and said volunteers attempted to answer signers— questions and used lists and leave-behind materials. Star presented a 22-page packet to the committee and asked that Council Member Ted Weaver recuse himself from the committee process, saying Weaver—s public social-media posts showed bias. "I would ask Council Member Weaver to recuse himself from the process," Star said during her statement.
Weaver declined to step aside, replying that he had publicly expressed his views but would listen to evidence. "I—m allowed to have an opinion and state that opinion," Weaver said.
Objectors and other public commenters pressed three main lines of concern: whether signatures were gathered within the timing windows the statute contemplates (petitioners and staff debated whether signatures collected before the May 22 appointment could be ruled invalid), whether individual signatories were eligible electors (residency and age), and whether circulators made material omissions or misrepresentations when soliciting signatures. Several speakers also noted the proximity of a scheduled general election and questioned the fiscal prudence of holding a special election, citing county cost estimates that ranged in testimony from about $8,800 (a 2022 figure mentioned by a witness) to current estimates quoted in the hearing of $15,000–$20,000.
Legal counsel and the clerk explained the committee—s limited, quasi-judicial role: the clerk—s initial validation follows a "four-corners" review of the petition, the committee must decide whether the written objection raises sufficient grounds, and any party may pursue judicial review after the committee—s decision. Counsel also noted the statute provides two 14-day windows tied to the appointment process for submitting petitions and said the committee must interpret how those windows apply to the dates at issue.
Supporters of the petition, including several volunteers who collected signatures, said they largely relied on voter lists and neighborhood canvassing, asked signers to write legibly and left contact or sign locations when residents were unavailable. Speakers who opposed the petition emphasized that the law does not require circulators to recite specific talking points to every prospective signer and that disclosure mandates would have to come from the legislature.
After public testimony and extended questioning, the committee voted to continue the hearing to a later date, with the record left open for additional written submissions. The clerk said the committee will reconvene to consider the objection and the petition—s validity; no final decision was announced Thursday.
The committee—s next procedural step is to set a continuation date, review the submitted evidence and determine whether the objection warrants denying certification of the petition. If the committee—s determination is appealed, the dispute may proceed to district court for judicial review.
