Behind the Headlines:
The Real Reason Sondra Was Kept Off the Ballot:
How political sabotage, years of litigation to clear my name, and denial of due process rights gave Iowans less information and fewer candidates to choose from
By Sondra Wilson | Updated September 25, 2026
Iowans Ought Have a Shared Interest in Deterring Political Sabotage
My absence from Iowa's 2026 gubernatorial ballot cannot be understood simply by looking at the June 2 filing deadline. It would be inaccurate and misleading to reduce my absence to, "Sondra didn't gather enough signatures, and therefore isn't on the ballot." That narrative rewards the outcome of those who sabotaged my political work, while enabling Iowa elections to remain susceptible to this type of political sabotage in general.
It doesn't matter which party a candidate belongs to—or if they are affiliated with a party at all. When a campaign appears to have been deliberately sabotaged, every Iowan ought share an interest in ensuring that candidate's voice is still heard, and that they are not kept out of the debates or interview opportunities as a result.
The Political Sabotage:
Here's What Happened
In 2021, I entered into two labor agreements with several associated businesses in Ames, Iowa. Those agreements remained in effect throughout 2022, and for approximately six months I performed labor without incident. During that time, I was given every indication that my work was valued and that I was a welcomed member of the community.
In March 2022, that relationship changed abruptly. I was suddenly barred from the premises based on unspecified allegations of sexual misconduct. The allegations were never explained to me, no evidence was provided, and the conduct alleged did not occur.
Those accusations were particularly damaging because I am an intersex woman. Although I was assigned male at birth, I naturally developed female sexual characteristics during puberty and later sought medical treatment related to my condition. In the current political climate, allegations involving sexual misconduct can be especially harmful when directed toward individuals whose sex or gender characteristics are already subject to misunderstanding, suspicion, or prejudice.
As a result of the manner in which I was treated, the presumption of guilt I experienced, and the damage to my reputation, I filed a discrimination complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) in 2022.
Rather than prompting a good-faith examination of my concerns, the situation escalated after the complaint was filed. In response to the ICRC investigation, several individuals associated with the businesses submitted statements containing numerous allegations of criminal and civil misconduct. Among other things, I was accused of stalking, harassment, racism, and other conduct that I maintain never occurred.
The statements also attempted to recast the labor I had performed under our agreements as unwanted, intrusive, or unauthorized, despite the fact that the same work had previously been accepted for months, with encouragement and kindness from everyone involved. You do not need to take my word for it: because the court has thus far refused to consider my exhibits, I have assembled the record to prove the allegations against me were false, within the first article in a new series I have finally finished compiling.
Viewed collectively, the accusations portrayed me as a dangerous individual who had engaged in serious wrongdoing. Anyone reading those statements without access to the evidence contradicting them would likely conclude that I had committed acts that were both unlawful and morally reprehensible.
What began as a complaint concerning discrimination and unequal treatment therefore evolved into something much broader: a coordinated effort to justify my exclusion, discredit my complaint, and destroy my credibility through false and extremely-damaging allegations.
A Falsified Document Was Used to Make the Allegations Appear True
The coordinated statements were accompanied by out-of-context and re-arranged messages between myself and some of defendants in order to make it appear as if I had performed the acts they accused me of.
What I call "the falsified document" included a message written by Ms. Colville, whom I was accused of stalking, telling me not to contact her anymore. Her message was placed above messages I had sent to her during a time I was led to believe she was my friend. Alternative time stamps were placed atop the original dates I sent those messages, making it appear as if she told me to stop contacting her, followed by my messages. At the top of this same document, someone wrote "Communication where [Ms. Colville] asked for no further communication, followed by Sondra’s response.”
People do not go to these lengths merely to get a discrimination complaint dismissed. Their statements, out-of-context messages, and the falsified document remained lodged in government records and accessible to the perpetrators as a future date.
Because I founded and ran the political organization Wild Willpower, these documents remained an ongoing threat capable of destroying my reputation, undermining my credibility and work, and initiating a malicious prosecution against me on a future date. I had the documentation to prove their statements false and to expose the fraud, and—for obvious reasons—knew that I must clear my name prior to running for office.
The Lawsuit to Clear My Name:
Wilson v. Reliable Street Inc., et al.
One would think that clearing your name from something like this would not be extremely difficult. With as backlash as there is against transgender people, there is also a lot of support. This support, I have found, is very limited.
Although Pride events are annually held across the state, and advocacy is widespread, legal support seemed to be inexistent. After searching diligently for more than a year, eventually I realized I was going to have to study the extraordinarily-complex Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Evidence, and figure out how to file the lawsuit myself.
Having grown up accustomed to Matlock, the Andy Griffith Show, and Judge Judy, I generally believed that the system—as much flack as it gets—has the potential to be just, if used correctly, and with good cause. I believed the courts were generally impartial, that a discovery process would provide the opportunity for my evidence to be shown, and that a jury would see that the labor agreements did in fact exist, that I was clearly discriminated against, and that after I filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, a small group of people did in fact manufacture a falsified document and false allegations against me. This was clearly a case of fraud, conspiracy, defamation, and promissory estoppel.
I had no idea what I was in for. To put it bluntly, these past several years—since I filed suit on December 5, 2023—have been an absolute nightmare.
A Complicated and Highly-Irregular District Court Proceedings
The district court proceedings lasted from December 5, 2023 through August 11, 2026, travelling across two courthouses and before three different judges, in what became an increasingly fragmented, difficult-to-explain, and frankly buried record that has effectively served to cover up more injustices than the case has even come close to resolving.
The court never considered my exhibits. Discovery never took place, and the jury trial that was scheduled for August 4 became cancelled following a dangerous argument the defendants brought before the court this year, within their motion for summary judgement and supporting filings.
This case veered completely off-track as a result of two issues that can only be seen via carefully sifting through the years of court filings to see what happened:
This page is currently being updated. Please check back later on September 26.
I filed the Notice of Appeal on September 9, and the appellate brief is due on November 6.
far, this lawsuit has travelled across two courthouses, three judges,
Three Judges Appointed by Kim Reynolds,
Who Has Shown Nothing But Contempt Toward Transgender People
nightmare
Page being finished. Please check back on September 26.
Parts One-Three: Before the Lawsuit →
Parts Four–Seven: The District Court Proceedings →
What Remained Unresolved When the Litigation Collided With the Eleciton
By the time the Reliable Street litigation collided with the 2026 ballot-access period, several fundamental factual matters had still never received a full merits adjudication.
The disputed document I contend was materially altered had never been substantively examined.
Full discovery had never occurred.
The factual record had become fragmented across motions, amendment proceedings, judicial assignments, and interlocutory rulings.
No court had conducted a full merits hearing on the broader factual controversy that had caused me to seek judicial relief in the first place.
That unresolved posture matters because the ballot-access court later characterized the resulting litigation burdens as ordinary, foreseeable, and voluntarily undertaken. The question of why the litigation existed and what had caused it to become so burdensome therefore became directly relevant to Wilson v. Pate.
II. The Ballot-Access Case — Wilson v. Pate
I asked for relief before the June 2 deadline. The court denied it after characterizing the underlying litigation as ordinary, foreseeable, and voluntarily undertaken—a characterization I directly disputed with an expanded factual record.
By May 2026, the litigation documented above was colliding directly with Iowa's ballot-access period. I contacted the Secretary of State before the deadline and was told that Iowa law provided no administrative extension mechanism; a different deadline would require a court order.
I therefore filed Wilson v. Pate before the deadline, asking for additional time to complete the same ballot-access requirements—not a waiver or reduction of those requirements. The type of ballot-access relief I was asking for had been granted to other candidates facing extraordinary circumstances.
But the litigation that caused me to seek relief did not stop when the ballot-access case began. For a period of months, the two cases proceeded simultaneously while the election calendar continued moving.
At a Glance:
Two Cases, One Election Clock
January–April — Reliable Street: Amendment proceedings, discovery disputes, summary-judgment briefing, and preparation for additional hearings continue while signature gathering is underway.
April 22 — Reliable Street: The court denies the pending amendment without prejudice, directs what a renewed filing must contain, and sets additional proceedings. The order triggers further research, rewriting, exhibit organization, and preparation.
May 19 — Ballot Access: I contact the Secretary of State seeking an administrative remedy. The office responds that Iowa law provides no extension mechanism and that a different deadline would require a court order.
May 26 — Reliable Street: A hearing is held seven days before the June 2 filing deadline.
May 27–28 — Wilson v. Pate: I go to court before the deadline seeking additional time. The first order denies relief at the threshold and expressly does not reach the remaining considerations.
June 1–5 — Wilson v. Pate: I supply additional authority and seek reconsideration. On June 5, the court addresses circumstances it had not reached on May 28 and characterizes the underlying litigation burdens as ordinary, foreseeable, and voluntarily undertaken.
June 15–17 — Both Cases: I complete the court-directed revised pleading and supporting materials in Reliable Street, then submit those materials in Wilson v. Pate to explain why I disputed the characterization of the workload as voluntary or “self-created.”
June 22 — Wilson v. Pate: The district court denies further reconsideration.
July onward — Both Cases: Reliable Street reaches dispositive district-court rulings while Wilson v. Pate moves into appellate proceedings.
A Pattern Emerged:
Consequential Rulings Without Explained Reasoning
As Wilson v. Pate moved from the district court to the Iowa Supreme Court, the same problem appeared at three critical stages.
June 22 — District Court: After I submitted an expanded factual record directly challenging the court's characterization that the underlying litigation burdens were ordinary, foreseeable, and voluntarily undertaken, Judge Beattie stated that he had reviewed the materials and “again reconsidered” his ruling. He left the result unchanged—but did not explain why the new factual record failed to alter that characterization.
August 12 — Iowa Supreme Court: After I briefed the appellate-timeliness issue and cited Iowa authority addressing modification, successive reconsideration motions, and substance-over-label analysis, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as untimely. It did not identify whether it concluded that June 5 was not a modification, that my June 17 motion was not directed only at that modification, that the cases I cited were distinguishable, or that some other requirement had failed.
August 26 — Iowa Supreme Court: I then expressly asked the Court either to reinstate the appeal or explain the legal basis for rejecting the modification argument. The Court denied both reinstatement and the request for clarification, again without supplying that explanation.
These were not inconsequential procedural rulings. Together, they ended my effort to obtain appellate review of the ballot-access dispute while the election calendar continued moving.
That is one of the central issues documented throughout this collection: a court can state that it considered a party's evidence and legal arguments without showing the public how those arguments were resolved. When the resulting orders carry severe consequences, the absence of reasoned explanation makes meaningful review, public scrutiny, and correction much harder.
My position is that this sequence raises serious due-process and judicial-accountability concerns. The documentary articles linked below reproduce the filings, authorities, and orders so readers can evaluate that conclusion for themselves.
Election Interference: District Court Proceedings →
I Asked for More Time Before the Deadline—The Same Kind of Relief Other Candidates Have Received
Wilson v. Pate: Iowa Supreme Court Proceedings →
The Fight Over Timeliness, Jurisdiction, and the Appeal
Incentivizing Interference →
How ‘Ordinary, Foreseeable, and Voluntary’ Mischaracterized the Record Used to Deny Ballot-Access Relief
Who Decided Wilson v. Pate? →
The Judicial Officers, State Attorneys, Appointments, and Safeguards Behind the Ballot-Access Decisions
Wilson v. Pate marks the point where the underlying civil-rights and court record crossed directly into the electoral process. What began as a fight to clear my name had become a dispute over whether Iowans would have the opportunity to consider my candidacy at all.
III. The Election Impact
The legal record explains how I remained off the ballot. A separate question is what happened afterward: whether voters continued hearing about my campaign, whether journalists and debate organizers continued treating it as part of the election, and what happened after Nicholas Gluba and I asked Iowa's major-party campaigns to address both exclusions.
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
IV. Related 2026 Election Issues
Read the Companion Article: The Real Reason Nicholas Gluba Was Kept Off the Ballot →
Sign the Petition to Demand a Real 2026 Election: Let the People Decide! →
Nicholas Gluba and I reached the ballot-access dispute through different circumstances, but both campaigns have asked Iowans to examine the underlying records rather than treating ballot exclusion as the end of the public conversation. On September 17, our campaigns contacted the Rob Sand and Zach Lahn campaigns and called for a four-candidate gubernatorial debate cycle. The companion article and joint statement above contain that separate record.
V. Support the Documentary and Legal Work
This record is being assembled while both cases remain active. Information about legal/living support, Wild Willpower PAC, and other ways to help is available here.
This documentary record is being assembled while litigation and appellate work remain ongoing. If you would like to help keep the record public, support the legal/documentary work, or support Wild Willpower's separate civic and political activities, information about the different ways to help is available here.
Ways to Support
To ensure transparency and compliance, my fundraising is divided into distinct, separate funds for different purposes. Please use the option corresponding to the activity you intend to support:
Personal Legal and Living Support
My personal survival-fundraiser is separate from my candidate committee and from Wild Willpower PAC. Funds contributed here are intended for the personal expenses and legal-support needs, and are not contributions to Sondra Wilson for Iowa Governor or Wild Willpower PAC. There are three ways to donate to my survival fund:
PayPal: Sondra.Wilson777@gmail.com
Venmo: @Sondra-Wilson-777
GoFundMe: [coming soon]
Support Wild Willpower PAC
For people who want to support Wild Willpower PAC's separate political and public-education activities rather than my personal expenses or candidate committee, please offer a campaign contribution here.