"Let the People Decide!"
Libertarian Nicholas Gluba and Independent Sondra Wilson
Challenge Rob Sand and Zach Lahn to a Real Four-Candidate Debate Cycle
Candidates Urge Iowans to Look Beyond the Headlines:
"We Must Demand a Real Election!"
Gluba and Wilson:
Two Very Different Candidates Find Common Ground in Fight for Fair Elections
Many Iowans saw the headlines: "State Objection Panel Takes Two Libertarian Candidates Off November Ballot" or "Iowa Supreme Court Affirms Decision Keeping Libertarian Candidates Off Ballot". These headlines may have been a passing conversation at work, or they held a brief slot in the evening news.
Other Iowans heard about Sondra Wilson and saw her once or twice on the news, but never had the opportunity to learn about her platform or hear her speak.
When they didn't make the ballot, people moved on, thinking "Well, I guess they didn't fulfill the requirements," but that's not an accurate depiction of what really happened that kept them off the ballot.
Now, Gluba and Wilson are teaming up—not only to get their real stories out there, but because they believe, when Iowans learn the truth, they, too, will demand the same thing, "Real elections demand real debates, and that means all four candidates."
Nicholas Gluba Gathered ~8000 Signatures
Nicholas Gluba's absence from the ballot has a longer history than the shorthand explanation that he simply “failed to qualify.” In 2024, Rob Sand actually voted against removing Gluba and two other Libertarian congressional candidates from the ballot, although Iowa's courts ultimately upheld their removal over the Libertarian Party's convention procedures.
In 2026, Gluba pursued a different path and collected the signatures required to run for governor. His ticket was nevertheless removed after a dispute over whether lieutenant-governor candidate Jules Cutler submitted — or attempted to submit — her affidavit of candidacy. A district judge later said he disagreed with the objection panel's finding that Cutler never offered the affidavit, but still upheld the decision under the applicable standard of review.
Read the full story: The Untold Story: How Nicholas Gluba Was Kept Off the 2026 Gubernatorial Ballot.
page in making please check back shortly
Iowa voters were supposed to have more than two choices for governor.
Nicholas Gluba, the Libertarian candidate for governor, and I, independent candidate Sondra Wilson, each mounted statewide campaigns. Each of us pursued ballot access. Each became entangled in litigation. And each was ultimately kept off Iowa’s printed 2026 gubernatorial ballot through circumstances that cannot be adequately understood from a headline saying we simply “failed to qualify.”
Now we are joining together to ask Rob Sand and Zach Lahn for something the courts and ballot will not give Iowa voters: the opportunity to hear all four gubernatorial candidates debate.
On September 14, Nicholas Gluba confirmed that his campaign is joining mine in issuing a public challenge to Sand and Lahn to participate in a statewide four-candidate debate cycle.
The proposition is simple:
Let the people decide who is “realistic.”
Let voters hear the candidates. Let voters compare the platforms. Let voters ask the questions. And then let Iowans decide for themselves whose campaign deserves their support.
Then I would immediately put your strongest flyer beneath that.
After the flyer:
This challenge did not appear out of nowhere.
Several days earlier, I publicly questioned a statement from Rob Sand’s campaign about having “more than two realistic options on the ballot.” I asked the obvious question: Who gets to decide which candidates are “realistic”?
My answer is that Iowa voters should.
But they cannot meaningfully make that judgment if two campaigns are excluded not only from the ballot, but also from the debates through which most voters encounter gubernatorial candidates.
That gives you a natural place to embed the screenshot you supplied.
I would be careful with the 45-minute timing, though. You can absolutely report the chronology if you can document it, but I would write:
Approximately 45 minutes after my statement was emailed to Sand’s campaign, Sand’s campaign posted that Iowa needed “more than two realistic options on the ballot.”
Then:
I do not know whether the post was prompted by my statement. But given the timing—and because Gluba and I are precisely the candidates excluded from the printed ballot—I publicly asked Sand what he meant by “realistic.”
That is much stronger than implying causation you cannot presently prove.
Your September 11 campaign statement already set up the intellectual bridge beautifully: “Ballot access comes before ballot ranking,” followed by your invitation for readers to examine Gluba’s case and yours rather than relying only on headlines or outcomes. That can become a callback in this article rather than repeating the whole Sand/transgender-policy dispute.
Then I would divide the article into five substantive sections.
- The Challenge: Let All Four Candidates Debate
Put the joint statement here, followed by the petition and social-share graphics. - Why Nicholas Gluba Is Not Simply a Candidate Who “Failed to Qualify”
Tell the 2026 Cutler affidavit story, including the alleged interaction with the SOS employee, the conflicting recollection, the objection proceeding, litigation, and subsequent Aldrich nomination. Then briefly connect it to the 2024 case. - Why Sondra Wilson Is Not Simply a Candidate Who “Failed to Get Enough Signatures”
Link into your political-sabotage chronology and Wilson v. Pate. This is where you make the distinction between the mathematical outcome and why you say the signature period became impossible under the circumstances. - Who Gets to Decide Which Candidates Are “Realistic”?
Put Sand’s screenshot here. This is probably the conceptual heart of the article. - Sign the Petition — And Help Bring All Four Candidates to the Same Stage
Embed MoveOn, provide downloadable/shareable flyers, tell universities/media/civic groups how to volunteer to host.
One thing I would not do is make the headline principally about the legal cases. The public-facing action is bigger and easier to understand:
Four candidates. One stage. Let Iowa decide.
The legal backstory then explains why this challenge is necessary.
There is also a remarkable contrast worth developing carefully: in 2024, Sand himself voted against removing Gluba and the other Libertarians from the ballot, while Pate and Bird voted to remove them. In 2026, Sand recused from Gluba’s gubernatorial objection because Sand was now Gluba’s electoral opponent. You do not need to accuse Sand of hypocrisy. You can simply put the facts together and ask:
If Rob Sand believed Iowa voters deserved the opportunity to vote for Nicholas Gluba in 2024, why shouldn’t those same voters at least be permitted to hear Gluba debate him in 2026?
That is a very effective question precisely because it relies on Sand’s own earlier position.
And there is an even broader theme available: Gluba's ballot problems are not isolated to 2026. In 2024, the Iowa Supreme Court acknowledged that the Libertarians had used a nomination route that required strict statutory compliance; their candidates were consequently relegated to write-in campaigns. Bleeding Heartland pointed out how dramatically write-in status historically suppresses votes compared with having a printed third-party candidate. That strengthens your argument that “you can still write them in” is not functionally equivalent to normal participation in the electoral process.
I would make the petition language extremely simple.
Petition title:
Let Iowa Decide: Include All Four Candidates in the 2026 Governor Debates
Petition demand:
We, the undersigned, call on Rob Sand and Zach Lahn to accept the joint public challenge issued by Nicholas Gluba and Sondra Wilson and participate in a genuine four-candidate debate cycle before the November 2026 election.
Iowa voters—not political parties, courts, campaign budgets, or debate gatekeepers—should decide which candidates and ideas deserve their support.
We ask Iowa media organizations, universities, civic organizations, and community groups to help host debates in which all four active gubernatorial campaigns are invited to participate.
That is much harder to dismiss as “support our candidates.” Someone can dislike both of you politically and still sign it because they support open electoral discourse.
Finally, I think you have the beginnings of a memorable opening campaign phrase:
Two Candidates Were Kept Off the Ballot. They Don't Intend to Be Kept Out of the Debate.
That may actually be your best article teaser/social headline.
Underneath:
Nicholas Gluba and Sondra Wilson jointly challenge Rob Sand and Zach Lahn to face all four gubernatorial campaigns before Iowa voters.
That captures the entire development in two sentences.
And yes: this is substantially more newsworthy now that Gluba is formally on board. Before, this was your campaign inviting the others. Now it is a coordinated action by the Libertarian and independent gubernatorial campaigns, backed by a signed joint statement, a public petition, supporting legal histories, and an open invitation to media and civic organizations to host the events.