Posted on 09/24/2026 6:09:22 AM PDT by Red Badger
An Iowa judge on Wednesday threw out President Trump’s lawsuit over the Des Moines Register’s final 2024 poll and declared that even a wildly off election-eve survey is the kind of “erroneous statement” the First Amendment must protect.
RedState readers will surely remember the poll in question. The Register published a wild outlier three days before the presidential election, suggesting Kamala Harris held a lead over her Republican opponent in Iowa. The Hawkeye State was not considered competitive. And it wasn't. Trump went on to win the state by 13 points.
It was a 16-point miss that Trump described as "brazen election interference." The national media took that poll and ran with it, producing shocking headlines that offered hope to the Harris campaign and were seemingly designed to drive turnout for the flailing candidate.
In December 2024, Trump — joined by Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01) and former Iowa Sen. Brad Zaun — sued pollster J. Ann Selzer, Selzer & Company, the Des Moines Register, and Gannett (now USA Today Co.) under Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act.
Judge Scott Beattie didn't buy into the argument, dismissed the case in full, and rejected Trump’s attempt to treat the poll as a defective product under Iowa’s consumer-fraud law. In his 64-page decision, he argued that allowing the suit to proceed would chill debate.
“Allowing a legally faulty claim like this to proceed carries a cost that an ordinary case does not, because defending it can discourage others from reporting on and debating public affairs,” Beattie wrote. “Erroneous statements are inevitable in free debate and must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the breathing space they need to survive.”
The lawsuit attempted to label the poll as a "product," defective in nature, an assessment the judge rejected outright.
“Simply labeling the poll a product does not change the analysis,” he wrote. “The fact that someone was paid to conduct the poll does not transform it from speech into a product. ... The rights protected by the First Amendment are not a word game.”
That does not mean the poll was good, honest, or harmless. In fact, it was a spectacular miss which Trump's team believes may have had ill intent behind it.
"Errors are inevitable" may be a reason not to impose damages, but it is not a finding that the Register and Selzer did a competent job or that the timing was innocent.
Selzer would retire from the polling business just two weeks after the embarrassing pro-Harris results, ending a 27-year relationship with the Des Moines Register.
“My integrity means a lot to me,” she wrote in an op-ed for the newspaper. ”To those who have questioned it, there are likely no words to dissuade."
Selzer claimed the exit was pre-planned.
Trump's legal team has no intention of letting this end with Judge Beattie's decision.
“President Trump is committed to holding responsible those who traffic in deception and fake news,” a statement reads. “This scam was designed to damage President Trump’s dominant campaign in the final days of the race. Such fraud cannot be allowed to stand, and President Trump will take his powerful case to the Iowa Supreme Court in order to see it through to a just and winning conclusion.”
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
This suit was ill-advised.
Political predictions are pure guesswork.
This suit was ill-advised.
Political predictions are pure guesswork.
“Section 7. Liberty of speech and press.
Every person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury, and if it appears to the jury that the matter charged as libellous was true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted.”
https://observed.org/constitution/iowa/
Note the last clause below:
“Every person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.”
And yet, during "COVID", TRUE statements were censored, as were any opinions or questions that TPTB didn't like. Where was the First Amendment then? I don't recall too many judges rushing to defend it.
If you're looking at, or posting polls, then you're a slubbering rantipole.
Polls, too!
“ wildly off election-eve survey is the kind of “erroneous statement” the First Amendment must protect.”
No. It was not erroneous. It was misleading.
“Political predictions are pure guesswork.”
Professional polling is serious business involving serious money and serious people.
So free speech protects fraud?
It was not an ‘error’... it was a purposeful lie.
But this lawsuit was an iffy proposition right from the start. A better use of their time and money would have been to very publicly prove it was so bad that this ‘poll’ should never be trusted again.
The result (calling this an ‘error’) has a little bit of that same effect.
...yet a Democrat judge wanted to put a Republican kid in jail for posting a meme telling Democrats to vote on the wrong day.
It wasn’t a prediction it was a bold in-your-face lie with the intent to deceive the nation. You know it too, Miami Rebel, and you’re part of the scam.
“Political predictions are pure guesswork.”
********************************************
“Rigorous Science With a Global Reach”
“We use 90+ years of industry-leading experience to ensure precision, validity and clarity. We can find representative samples of your target audiences in even the hardest-to-reach places.”
“The result is survey research that leaders can rely on and the public can trust.”
https://www.gallup.com/analytics/656957/custom-survey-research.aspx
Push Polls are 100% protected speech ?
BUahahahahahahahahaha!
Soon a yay vote will be a nay.
Dems are so twisted they have to turn their ass wipes into screws.
Have you ever heard of a pollster being sued for getting a result wrong?
Me neither.
You might as well sure weathermen and stockpickers.
This was not a prediction. It was a deliberate effort to influence the election.
How about intentional erroneous predictions?
How about intentional erroneous predictions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.