J. Ann Selzer Presses to Dismiss Trump’s Legal Action Over Poll Predictions
Veteran Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer is pursuing the dismissal of a lawsuit filed against her by former President Donald Trump and the Des Moines Register. The legal action arises from a controversial poll conducted in November that suggested former Vice President Kamala Harris was leading Trump in Iowa.
First Amendment Defense
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a prominent free speech advocacy organization, has submitted a motion to a federal court to support Selzer. In their filing, they argue that polling constitutes a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment.
FIRE’s argument emphasizes that “plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the First Amendment and the Court should dismiss them with prejudice,” stating that no jurisdiction has recognized a cause for “fraudulent news.”
The Controversial Poll
Selzer’s poll, released on November 2, surprised many political analysts by showing Harris ahead of Trump by three percentage points in Iowa—an unexpected result given Trump’s victories in the state during the 2016 and 2020 elections. Ultimately, Trump secured Iowa in the 2024 general election by a margin of 14 points.
Responses and Reactions
Following the backlash regarding her poll, Selzer announced her decision to retire. She informed the Register that she would not renew her contract for 2024 polls as she transitions to new opportunities.
Trump’s lawsuit, initiated in mid-December, accuses Selzer of violating Iowa’s consumer fraud laws by misleading voters. His legal team has demanded that she refrain from releasing additional polls they consider deceptive and seeks unspecified damages.
In the lawsuit, Trump’s team claimed, “For too long, left-wing pollsters have attempted to influence electoral outcomes through manipulated polls that have unacceptable error rates.”
Legal Viability of Claims
In their court filing, FIRE contended that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate any recoverable damages and have not adequately articulated their claims. They asserted that no court has previously accepted similar allegations, urging the court to reject Trump’s legal action outright.
