Who Decided Wilson v. Pate?
The Handful of Judicial Officers Who Controlled My Path to the Ballot
Who appointed them, what role did each play,
and what safeguards does Iowa have to ensure judicial independence in election cases?

By Sondra Wilson | Updated September 23, 2026 

Part of the Reason This is Being Made Public

From my perspective, I cannot help but notice that all three judges were appointed by Kim Reynolds, who has shown nothing but animus toward transgender Iowans.  Part of the reason this series is being published is that, as long as these proceedings have gone on, the court repeatedly refused to examine my exhibits, and discovery never took place.

The following articles cover the proceedings themselves; by reading them—in context with the aforementioned "dark history" and the current political climate—you will understand why I am making all this public.

The court has not retained my trust. To believe there will be a just outcome, if this case receives no public scrutiny, would be naive and dangerous for me.  Although there is no legal mechanism that I am aware of to determine a judge's intent, I will be challenging several court orders during the appeal, which was filed on September 9.

Keep in mind I had never filed a civil suit and couldn't afford an attorney, but this was important enough I had no choice. 

Court-Assisted Absue of Process Through Abuses of Discretion
"Outside Actors" Does Not Just Mean the Defendants in the Reliable Street Case

 

The ballot-access dispute cannot be understood without the separate judges whose orders generated portions of the underlying litigation burden. Those proceedings are documented in the District Court Proceedings collection and in “Incentivizing Interference.” This article focuses instead on the judicial officers who actually acted in Wilson v. Pate and its appeal.

 

Scott Beattie — Polk County District Court
What he decided; appointment history; the May 28, June 5, June 22 rulings.

Wilson v. Pate was an action in equity. I was not asking taxpayers for money damages; I was asking the court for a practical equitable remedy: additional time to finish satisfying Iowa's ballot-access requirements, as has been given to other candidates.

While Iowa courts maintain that litigants have no constitutional right to a jury in equity cases under Littleton v. Fritz (1885) and State ex rel. Attorney General v. Autor (2023), the Iowa Constitution does not mince words, 

"The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate."

Iowa courts appear to have sharply veered from those very straightforward and simple words.

My political work was sabotaged. I brought the evidence before the court, and requested relief. 

District Court Judge Scott J. Beattie instead created a separate narrative that did not align with the facts, and was used to justify keeping me off the ballot. 

Normally every citizen is given one vote.

Instead this one man kept me off the ballot and denied Iowans from learning about my platform or hearing my message. 

The Iowa Supreme Court
Which justices were expressly identified on which orders; distinguish panel membership from merely signing an order.

The State's Representation
Patrick Valencia / Attorney General's office and the arguments made on behalf of the Secretary of State.

What Safeguards Exist?
Iowa judicial selection, recusal/impartiality rules, retention, and whatever structural election-case safeguards you decide to examine.