Gubernatorial Candidate Sondra Wilson offers
A Pretty Big Deal for Iowans

First off, if you care about justice or human rights, or about helping Veterans, you will at least attempt to read every word of this article. Bluntly, it is that important. There’s a crucial history lesson with legal knowledge embedded into it that every logistically-minded Iowan should take the time to wrap their head around. We do that and we’ll all be a lot better off. If you have questions or need clarification on anything, please email me at SondraWilson4Governor@gmail.com. I’ve tried to make this as simple for people to understand as possible. This article brings my campaign proposals into historical context, then calls for both parties to get “back on track”.

First, there was
The Square Deal

The Square Deal was 26th President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt’s domestic policy framework (1901–1909), which aimed for fairness and balance — ensuring government worked not just for industrial magnates and elites, but also for citizens, workers, and communities. It was built on three pillars he called the “Three C’s”:

1.) Conservation of natural resources — created millions of jobs planting trees, building trails, and fighting fires, leading to ~230 million acres of national forests, parks, and monuments, and creation of the U.S. Forest Service.

2.) Control of corporations — Teddy became known as the “trust buster” because he was the first President to encourage trust busting legislation. A trust is formed by multiple companies coming together under one corporate umbrella to dominate the market share or an industry. The rise of industrialization inspired many companies to collude and form trusts together to take advantage of multiple new inventions. Under his administration, the first major trust busting act was passed, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. This allowed Roosevelt to sue monopolists and oligopolies in federal court to have them split up into smaller companies or have them dissolved to allow competition in the marketplace. Regulations were installed to prevent trusts from forming again once they were busted. Teddy brought about consumer protection reform, transportation regulation, and other economic reforms (Study.com 2023).

3.) Consumer protection (fair labor and food regulations) — During the Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902, 140,000 miners went on strike demanding higher wages, shorter hours, and union recognition. Rather than siding with mine owners as previous presidents had, Teddy invited both sides to the White House and brokered a deal through arbitration. Workers got a 10% wage increase and 9-hour workdays (down from 10). The strike marked the first time a U.S. president intervened on behalf of labor rather than capital, thus setting a new precedent for federal involvement in labor disputes. In 1903 he created the Department of Commerce and Labor (1903), which established a cabinet-level department to oversee business practices and labor issues. It included the Bureau of Corporations, which investigated monopolies and working conditions. In 1906 the Meat Inspection Act and Pure Food and Drug Acts were passed. Prompted by Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle, which exposed horrifying conditions in Chicago’s meatpacking industry, the MIA required federal inspection of all meat sold across state lines, and mandated sanitary conditions in meatpacking plants. The PFDA, which led to the creation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), prohibited sale of misbranded or adulterated food and drugs, and required active ingredient labeling. It also targeted snake oil salesmen and false medical claims.

“All I ask is a square deal for every man. Give him a fair chance.” — Teddy Roosevelt

Then came the
The New Deal

In 1933, 32nd President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (“FDR”) launched a series of new federal programs, public work projects, financial reforms, and regulations in response to the Great Depression (1929-1939). The primary goals were to provide relief to the unemployed and poor, achieve economic recovery, and reform the financial system to prevent future depressions (Kennedy 1999).

Before we continue, there is very important historical context which will bring the New Deal into context, and why the platform I propose to Iowans, called “A Pretty Big Deal“, is relevant and needed at this time.

Leading up to the New Deal: Brief, Crucial History

Our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln, began the Civil War as a devout constitutionalist who was primarily focused on keeping the union together. It was not until the bloodiest war in US history moved forward, that he eventually realized his true calling and moral imperative: ending slavery. He used that calling to rekindle the flame of America on the Original Ideal for which we have not yet accomplished. One of President Lincoln’s most renown and divine covenants, God rest his soul, was embedded into his 1863 Gettysburg Address, “[T]hat government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Following the war, Lincoln went on to form a bipartisan coalition from a reluctant congress until the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, was finally passed on January 31, 1865. Before we continue — in case you haven’t seen it — I highly recommend the movie Lincoln, as it depicts the devout effort Lincoln put forth in order to get this historic Amendment passed:

Approximately two months later, on April 14, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, a pro-slavery Confederate who had been outspoken against abolition and Lincoln for many years.

Reconstruction Era: Lincoln’s Party lifts his torch

The early Republican Party, moved by Lincoln’s passion and leadership, lit their torches from the flame he stoked inside the nation’s heart. Thus, that same year — 1865 — the Reconstruction Era began. The North stationed troops all throughout the South to help facilitate the integration of millions of newly-freed former slaves. Republicans in Congress tried to rebuild the South around civil rights, biracial democracy, and potential for Black political leadership. This included (1) Freedmen’s Bureau, which provided education, legal protection, and job contracts, (2) helping with campaigns that got 2,000 black candidates elected for local, state, and federal offices, and (3) military enforcement of civil rights.

The Ku Klux Klan: Southern Extremists Retaliate 

Also in 1865, in Pulaski, Tennessee on Christmas Eve, six  former Confederate soldiers from upper middle class backgrounds, including John C. Lester, James R. Crowe, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed, John B. Kennedy (not related to JFK according to my research), and J. Calvin Jones, founded the Ku Klux Klan. “Ku Klux” came from a corrupted form of the Greek word kyklos (κύκλος), meaning circle, so it essentially meant “Circle of Brothers”. Their goals included restoring white supremacy, intimidating Black citizens — voters, landowners, politicians, Republican “carpetbaggers” (Northerners), and “scalawags” (Southern whites who supported Reconstruction). They used night rides — threats, beatings, lynchings, and arson, as well as white, hooded masks and fear-invoking titles, such as Grand Wizard or Imperial Cyclops.

14th and 15th Amendments: Republicans Press On

Regardless, Lincoln’s Congress pushed forward: in 1868, blacks were were granted citizenship and equal protection under the 14th Amendment, and in 1870, the 15th Amendment provided voting rights.

Alexander Clark: Architect of Iowa’s Civil Rights Legacy

In June 1868 — about one month before the 14th Amendment was passed — in Muscatine, Iowa, a black man and Iowa native, Alexander Clark, took a case all the way to the Iowa Supreme Court so that his daughter, Susan, could attend the public (tax-funded) school which only allowed whites. Clark v. Board of School Directors, 24 Iowa 266 (1868) set a historic legal precedent that put Iowa on the map as the first state in the union desegregate schools: eighty-six years before Brown v. Board of Education is 347 U.S. 483 (1954)!

The KKK Acts: President Grant warns KKK to cease terrorist acts

Ulysses S. Grant between 1860 and 1865 via Wikimedia Commons

18th President Ulysses S. Grant saw the actions of the Ku Klux Klan as undermining the verdict of the Civil War, and as a form of terrorism. The Federal Government’s resources for curbing this widespread violence, however, were severely limited. In a letter to Speaker of the House James G. Blaine, Grant wrote, “[T]here is a deplorable state of affairs existing in some portions of the south demanding the immediate attention of Congress.”

Congress responded with three “Force Acts” aimed at stopping the violence. The Enforcement Act of 1870 prohibited “banding together” or “going in disguise upon the public highways or upon the premises of another” to violate a citizen’s constitutional rights. As the Klan was known for their disguises, this act put them on notice. The Second Force Act of 1871 put federal elections under federal supervision mainly by federal judges and U.S. Marshals. Finally, the Third Force Act of April of 1871 empowered President Grant to suspend Habeas Corpus and use the military to enforce these acts. The latter two Force Acts were also known as the “Ku Klux Klan Acts” (National Park Service). The modern version of the KKK Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is one of the primary means of vindicating federal constitutional rights against state and local actors even today (Feuerherd 2020).

On May 3, 1871, President Grant issued a proclamation warning that terroristic acts of violence would not be tolerated by his administration. Grant tried to appeal to the people of the South. “I do particularly exhort the people of those parts of the country to suppress all such combinations [lawlessness] by their own voluntary efforts,” Grant remarked, “and to maintain the rights of all citizens of the United States and to secure to all such citizens the equal protection of the laws.” He warned, “I will not hesitate to exhaust the powers thus vested in the Executive, whenever and wherever it shall become necessary to do so for the purpose of securing to all citizens of the United States the peaceful enjoyment of the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution and laws,” (National Park Service).

As the federal government used these laws to stamp out the KKK, in 1873 former president of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis, famously wrote, “The South shall rise again,” which became a haunting rallying cry and warning in several parts of the South for decades to come.

The Compromise of 1877: The Forgotten Sin of the Democratic and Republican Parties

Radical reforms and a federal iron fist came as a bridge too far, too fast for Southern Democrats, and with the Compromise of 1877, the Reconstruction Era came to a screeching halt. The loosely named “compromise” would more accurately be called a sellout, with black folk suffering the collateral damage. It was an unwritten deal that resolved the disputed 1876 U.S. presidential election between Rutherford B. Hayes (Republican) and Samuel J. Tilden (Democrat). In a nutshell, Hayes became president, despite losing the popular vote. In exchange, Republicans agreed to withdraw all federal troops from the South, effectively ending Reconstruction. Southern Democrats regained control over their state governments, which led to the disenfranchisement of Black voters, the rise of Jim Crow laws, and white supremacist rule in the South for decades.

A Republic Subverted — Hans v. Louisiana is 134 U.S. 1 (1890)

Hans was an activist ruling by a conservative, confederacy-minded court. An “activist ruling” typically refers to a court decision where judges are perceived to have made a ruling based on their own policy preferences or political views rather than solely on the law and legal precedent (Neuman, Scott 2025).

Within my forthcoming amended petition, I will be challenging Hans as unconstitutional within my suit, Wilson et al v. Trump et al. All case facts will be put onto this website, which will then be entered into evidence for the court to review. The fact that it is all being made public should allow Iowans to fill the courts en masse and film the proceedings so that my case doesn’t go unnoticed and ignored like my suit last year, which I shall explain here (and yes, we’re getting to the New Deal, and how this is all relevant):

Now the Courts say we can’t sue States in State Courts or Federal Courts — Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police

Last year, I sued the State of Iowa and Kim Reynolds’ candidate committee in Iowa’s state courts, “KIM REYNOLDS FOR IOWA” (Wilson v. State of Iowa and Kim Reynolds for Iowa), due to numerous torts and crimes targeting transgender Iowans. The state argued that my case should not move forward because the state is not a “person” for the purposes of a claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, relying on Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 68-69 (1989); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979); Kruger v. Nebraska, 820 F.3d 295, 302 (8th Cir. 2016). In Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, the claims court ruled that respondents were persons for purposes of § 1983. 

The Court of Appeals, however, vacated the judgment, holding that a State is not a person under § 1983. The Michigan Supreme Court granted discretionary review agreed that the State itself is not a person under § 1983, but held that a state official acting in his or her official capacity also is not such a person. The Michigan Supreme Court’s recent (1979) rogue holding that a State is not a person under § 1983 conflicts with a number of state and federal court decisions to the contrary. Another activist ruling by a conservative, confederacy-minded court.

Previous to this, the courts in the following cases have taken the position that a State is a person under § 1983. See Della Grotta v. Rhode Island, 781 F. 2d 343, 349 (CA1 1986); Gay Student Services v. Texas A&M University, 612 F. 2d 160, 163-164 (CA5), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 1034 (1980); Uberoi v. University of Colorado, 713 P. 2d 894, 900-901 (Colo. 1986); Stanton v. Godfrey, 415 N. E. 2d 103, 107 (Ind. App. 1981); Gumbhir v. Kansas State Bd. of Pharmacy, 231 Kan. 507, 512-513, 646 P. 2d 1078, 1084 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 1103 (1983); Rahmah Navajo School Bd., Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue, 104 N. M. 302, 310, 720 P. 2d 1243, 1251 (App.), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 940 (1986). Between Hans and now these more recent rulings which I shall challenge to overturn within my federal case, the judiciary has effectively attempted to subvert our republic. The fact is that U.S. dollars are backed my more than gold: they are backed by rights, which are far more valuable than gold. If ancient Egypt can declare gold as the international standard for currency, then the U.S. can declare rights as the new standard, which I’m all for. Then that big ass debt suddenly turns into a battle scar, and we tell the world, “march for human rights!” Anyway, elect me President if you want that — let’s get back to the history lesson and my proposal:

States are in fact a type of artificial person called a “body politic and corporate”:

– “The government of certain political subdivisions, including towns, cities, and counties,” (Black’s Law Dictionary 10^th).

– “A term often applied to a municipal corporation.  A county is such a body.  Waterbury v Board of Comrs. 10 Mont 515, 26 P 1002,” (Ballantine’s Law Dictionary 3^rd).

– “The term is particularly appropriate to a public corporation invested with powers and duties of government. It is often used… to designate the state or nation or sovereign power, or the government of a county or municipality, without distinctly connoting any express and individual corporate character. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 124, 24 L. Ed. 77; Coyle v. Mclntire, 7 Houst. (Del.) 44, 30 Atl. 728, 40 Am. St. Itep. 109; Warner v. Beers, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 122; People v. Morris, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 334.

Corporations are “persons”: arguing otherwise is caused by lack of knowledge in the law which is causing more harm than good

First, I must reiterate in order to clarify that Wilson v. State of Iowa and Kim Reynolds for Iowa was filed in the state court last year, and should not be confused with the federal case that I and a handful of Iowans filed this year, Wilson et al v. Trump et al. Here is a summary of what this current suit entails. Although the Original Petition and corresponding Criminal Complaint only addressed the current conspiracy against transgender rights here in Iowa, after the defendants are served, I shall file an Amended Petition which includes actions and corresponding criminal charges due to the following government torts and federal crimes:

In Wilson v. State of Iowa and Kim Reynolds for Iowa, I did not list the name of every individual as a defendant, and instead sued the state as a “person” because, in law, it is in fact a type of artificial person called a body politic and corporate. Even though people all the time — especially when discussing the Citizens United ruling — argue vehemently that “corporations are not people“, the court did not rule that corporations are “people”, however: they ruled that they are “persons”. This actually helps us in court! Remember when Ida Wells sued the big, bad railroad company during the time of Robber Barons and won in the trial court? The fact that one “person” harmed another “person” put she and the railroad on equal footing in court: it is designed to essentially makes David and Goliath the same size. We can use this to our advantage if we play our cards right! Even though Ida’s case was overturned, she did not have public support. Imagine if she had a courthouse surrounded by concerned citizens, with news coverage, a group of justices who were in the spotlight, and an entire citizenry of people who are knowledgeable in the law tuned into the case — and yes, that is what I’m working to orchestrate here, because this is what we’ll need when I go to court for the federal case to fight for us all. I’ll keep updating the website, and it will be up to you to help spread the word!

Anyway: this is why I cited respondeat superior in Wilson v. State & Kim, which would have enabled me to sue the State as a “person” and then, under the doctrine of “let the master respond”, I could have called state employees (including local officers, because local officials derive their power from the state, who derives its power from you and me) into court, via subpoenas, so we could have gotten to the bottom of it.

However, Judge Huppert, within his ruling, wrote three false pieces of information, then ruled upon what he wrote instead of what was written in the court filings. He also relied on and backed Asst. Atty. Gen. Christopher Deist’s convenient and unconstitutional argument that the state was not a person for the purpose of civil rights violations, therefore I could not sue the state.  When I appealed the decision, there were legal shenanigans from behind-the-scenes which I shall not get into here (it will be in my federal case!).

The point is that all this was done in order to deny my *inalienable right* to due process, and therefore it seems pretty obvious that the court is cock-blocking everyone from moving forward with civil rights cases – or at least anyone who doesn’t fit a current political agenda (e.g. a transgender woman filing a class action against the State of Iowa pro se due to civil rights violations).

For those who might argue, “But the people voted for transgender people to have their rights violated,” the fact is that we live in a democratic-republic. This means that when the majority harms the individual through the democratic majority, individual rights are still protected by rule of law under the republic!  The democratic side of our government is supposed to be counterbalanced by our republic, and vice versa. However, when the vast majority of people have no clue what the hell a republic even is (including modern Republicans, seemingly!), we end up with this Frankenstein’s Monster where apparently the majority can trample the rights of a minority, and justice seems nowhere to be found.

Had the State of Iowa courts honored the longstanding doctrine of respondeat superior instead of skirting the law, I would have been able to subpoena state officers and officials and cross-examined them on the stand so that together, a just court and  I could have determined whether (a) the state is liable, or (b) the individuals acted outside the scope of their duties, and therefore were personally liable. If it had been determined the latter, the state ought to have filed a cross-claim for the civil part of my case and prosecuted them for having violated color of law crimes.

As Governor, these are the types of injustices I am going to help the State of Iowa untangle, so that Iowans today and tomorrow are never left harmed by the state, then left without redress. The first thing we need to do is throw the Iowa Tort Claims Act in the damn trash can, because it’s corrupt as all sin! This article will be divided into several articles soon. For now, however, here is where some of the information is being moved to:

—