Off the Ballot? Out of the Conversation? 
The Deafening Silence
What happened after two excluded candidates
asked Iowa's major-party campaigns and media to look at the record

By Sondra Wilson | Updated September 23, 2026 

Navigating a Hostile Political Landscape

Furthermore, I am living in a state that has taken away legal protections, and—as you can see from the article series—will bend over backward to enable harm to transgender women. I am hopeful that the appeal will be successful, but the political reality and my experience thus far have not left me confident in the integrity of Iowa's judiciary. 

The civil-rights protections and remedies that once protected transgender persons like myself have been dismantled, and my only means of support at this time is from good Samaritans who see that I have been hurt and might show compassion to help support me during this time of survival as I work to be respected for who I am, not what I am.

I am deeply grateful to everyone who has read the documents, shared the articles, offered encouragement, helped with expenses, or simply taken the time to understand what has happened. I genuinely need more help than I have been receiving.

If you believe this record deserves to be heard, there are several ways to help: read and share the series, send it to attorneys or journalists who may be interested, support the call for a four-candidate debate cycle, or provide financial support if you are able. And again, sign and share the petition. I believe that the demand for a free and fair election must come through a groundswell movement of Iowans speaking up, because it is doubtful the parties themselves will say a word without public pressure demanding justice for myself and Mr. Gluba. 

This is Censorship:
One Reynolds-Appointed Judge Had the Power to Prevent Iowans From Learning About My Platform

 

3,500 Iowans were required to put my name on the ballot. Yet one judge had the authority to deny the equitable relief I requested, keeping my name off the ballot and preventing Iowans from having the full opportunity to learn about my platform, hear me questioned by journalists and voters, watch me defend my positions in debates, and compare my answers directly with the other candidates.

A website cannot substitute for ballot access, press interviews, candidate forums, or debates in which voters and journalists can ask questions I did not choose in advance and evaluate my answers alongside those of the other candidates.

The Political Environment That Made This Possible

 

The ballot‑access interference I experienced did not occur in isolation. It unfolded within a political environment where transgender Iowans had already lost fundamental protections. In 2025, Republican officials removed gender identity from the Iowa Civil Rights Act, eliminating state‑level protections in housing, employment, public accommodations, education, credit practices, and other areas of public life. Medicaid coverage for gender‑affirming care was also restricted, forcing low‑income transgender Iowans — including me — to postpone or cancel medically necessary treatment.

I am one of the people directly affected by these policies. My medical care has been delayed and canceled multiple times. My civil‑rights protections have been stripped away. My ability to work safely in Iowa has been undermined. And when I attempted to run for Governor as an independent candidate to challenge this system directly, I was not given a fair chance to reach the ballot.

The Republican option represents a party that has actively targeted transgender Iowans, stripped our civil‑rights protections, restricted Medicaid‑related care, and fueled rhetoric that makes our lives more dangerous. But the Democratic option does not resolve the problem either. When transgender issues became politically unpopular, they fell off the party’s platform priorities. And some of the party’s positions — particularly regarding minors and sports — helped create the wedge issue that ultimately led to the collapse of legal protections and healthcare for transgender adults in Iowa.

Transgender Iowans are not represented in Iowa’s political system right now. Democrats focus heavily on working‑class issues, but for many transgender Iowans, it is not safe to work. We are living without enforceable civil‑rights protections, without reliable access to medically necessary care, and without meaningful political representation.

 

Why the Democratic Silence Matters

 

This is why the Democratic silence matters.

My critique is not simply about Rob Sand, one candidate, or one campaign. It is about a political system in which Democrats often ask transgender Iowans for loyalty while avoiding the concrete injustices happening to us now.
Many Democrats condemn Republican attacks on transgender people in broad terms. But when a transgender independent candidate is forced into court to fight false records, civil-rights collapse, medical-care loss, and ballot-access harm, the silence becomes revealing.
That silence matters because representation is not only symbolic. It is not enough to praise equality when doing so is easy, while rallying around better-funded insiders when a transgender candidate is raising uncomfortable facts about Iowa’s legal system, civil-rights agencies, and ballot-access barriers.
This is not a demand for personal sympathy. It is a demand for political honesty. If Democrats believe transgender people deserve equal protection, equal dignity, and equal participation in public life, then those principles should not disappear when the person raising the issue is inconvenient, independent, or outside the party structure.
That is why this case belongs in the larger discussion about Iowa democracy. The issue is not only whether I was personally harmed. The issue is whether Iowa voters were denied the chance to hear from a candidate whose lived experience, legal cases, and platform exposed civil-rights failures that both major parties have reasons to avoid confronting.
This is one of the reasons I became an independent. I do not fit neatly into either party’s script. I disagree with some Democratic positions on transgender issues, particularly regarding minors and sports. I reject Republican cruelty, defamation, harassment, civil-rights rollbacks, Medicaid restrictions, and unchecked state power.
I wanted to bring a real conversation to Iowa — one grounded in lived experience, legal injuries, and a comprehensive plan for reform. Instead, I was kept off the ballot through litigation pressure, administrative failure, and a political environment where neither major party had an incentive to confront the full truth of what was happening.
This is why I am proceeding under protest. I reserve and am exercising my rights, and I demand restitution and a better future.

 

 

 

Why I Am Proceeding Under Protest

 

I am proceeding under protest.

That means I do not concede the legitimacy of a political system that strips civil‑rights protections from transgender people, cuts off medically necessary care, allows false public‑record allegations to threaten an independent candidacy, and then refuses to recognize the combined burden as a ballot‑access problem.

My campaign is shifting from candidacy to the courts.

I will continue appealing the ballot‑access ruling. I will continue pursuing the Reliable/Lockwood case to clear my name. I will continue seeking discovery, accountability, and adjudication of the truth or falsity of the allegations placed into the administrative and judicial record. I will continue preparing legal action concerning civil‑rights violations, color‑of‑law crimes, and state and federal law violations affecting transgender Iowans. I will continue calling for restitution for people whose rights have been violated, and whose medical care have been taken away.

Both major-party campaigns have now been contacted about the exclusions of Nicholas Gluba and me. I am not presently endorsing another candidate while I believe these issues remain unaddressed.