In the Iowa Supreme Court
No. 25–2197
Submitted September 10, 2026—Filed October 2, 2026
State of Iowa,
Appellee,
vs.
Scott A. Belt,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Roger L.
Sailer, judge.
A member of the Pottawattamie County Board of Supervisors appeals his
removal from office for intoxication. District court judgment affirmed.
Christensen, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices
joined.
Gina Messamer (argued) of Parrish Kruidenier, L.L.P., Des Moines, for
appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General; Eric H. Wessan (argued), Solicitor General;
and Patrick C. Valencia, Deputy Solicitor General, for appellee.
2
Christensen, Chief Justice.
We must decide whether an elected official’s intoxication justifies his
removal from office under Iowa Code section 66.1A(6) (2025). The defendant, a
member of the Pottawattamie County Board of Supervisors (the Board), was
serving as the Board’s chair when he organized and agreed to serve as the emcee
at a town hall meeting. This did not go according to plan because the defendant
spent the hour before the meeting drinking alcohol at a local bar and then arrived
at the town hall visibly and audibly under the influence. Other attendees and
presenters had to intervene and transport the defendant home, while video and
reports of the defendant’s behavior became local news.
Following an investigation, the county attorney filed a petition to remove
the defendant from office. The district court ordered the removal after a two-day
trial. We retained the defendant’s appeal, which challenges his removal in
various ways. Because none of these challenges are persuasive, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
In November 2022, the voters of Pottawattamie County re-elected Scott
Belt to serve a fourth term of four years on the Board of Supervisors. This term
began in January 2023 and expires December 31, 2026.1 In 2025, Belt was
serving as the Board’s chair when he planned for the Board to hold an evening
town hall meeting in Carson on November 5.
As the chair, Belt picked the town hall’s location, decided who was going
to speak, and designated himself the emcee. At Belt’s direction, the Board’s
executive assistant posted an agenda for the meeting on November 4, which
1Belt ran for re-election in the June 2026 primary election but was not selected as one of
his party’s candidates for the November 2026 election.
3
listed department updates from various agencies and county officials, including
the Board, the county auditor, and the sheriff’s office. The agenda for the
meeting, which was set for November 5 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Carson
Community Center, stated, “No deliberation or formal action will be taken at this
meeting.”
Around 5:30 p.m. on the evening of the town hall, Belt stopped at
The Bar’N and Grill in Carson, where surveillance video captured him ordering
a Budweiser and taking a seat at the bar next to Adam Houser, the mayor of
Carson. Houser “was under the impression that [Belt] had had some drinks and
was possibly intoxicated” when he arrived “based on his speech and actions.” At
one point, Belt left his barstool to stand behind Houser, where he gave Houser a
pat on the back and massaged his shoulders before moving to stand in the bar’s
entryway, essentially placing himself directly behind the bar. Belt stood on a sign
that said, “DO NOT FUCKING STAND HERE” and talked to patrons for a few
minutes before returning to his seat.
Around 5:55 p.m., Belt ordered a vodka cocktail, then alternated his
drinking between the Budweiser and the cocktail. He made his way across the
bar to hand out business cards and introduce himself to others, often standing
within their close proximity. One patron, whom Belt had poked in the back, was
so upset about Belt’s treatment of her that she messaged The Bar’N and Grill’s
owner about it. At some point, Houser asked Belt if he had to attend the town
hall that evening out of concern that Belt had been drinking. Belt “said it was a
meet and greet and that he would be fine.” He later asked for a to-go cup of his
cocktail and a straw, which he left with around 6:14 p.m.
Belt arrived at the town hall around 6:20 p.m. Approximately fifty people
were in attendance. Kate Gerber, the county public relations (PR) manager,
4
approached Belt to outline the agenda and other relevant information. In doing
so, she “was concerned about . . . the volume of [his] conversation as well as the
fact that [she] could smell alcohol.” Gerber approached the Board’s executive
assistant “and indicated that she could smell alcohol on [Belt’s] breath and
that . . . she felt that he was intoxicated.” This prompted the executive assistant
to call the county’s human resources director to report Gerber’s observations.
One attendee who interacted with Belt just before the meeting noticed
“a heavy alcohol smell,” and another one observed that Belt’s “eyes looked
funny.” Doug Reed, the county emergency management director, noticed that
Belt “was a little bit more loud and animated than normal” while he was “moving
through the crowd and talking with people” to make his way to the stage. Reed
and other attendees reported that Belt “appeared to be unsteady on his feet” and
“had trouble getting up the steps [to the stage] a little bit.” Nevertheless, others
acknowledged that the stage setup was hard to maneuver, and everyone was
“bumping and tripping as [they] got up on there.”
On stage, Belt stood behind a Pottawattamie County–branded lectern and
in front of a screen identifying him as “Scott Belt, Board Chair.” He began the
meeting by leading the Pledge of Allegiance before launching into an incoherent
speech to introduce a moment of silence. This speech ranged from asking the
attendees to “wish those people that are out there, you know, trying to make the
best of themselves and serving our country,” to declaring the county a “great
place to live.” He then asked the attendees to “take this time and, you know, if
you’ve got to pray for your grandkids and pray for what’s going on in your life or
what’s going on in the world, I’m going to ask you to just take probably just a
minute here and we’re going to, you know, just use that time to give thanks for
5
what we’ve got.” A local reporter for The Daily Nonpareil, which covers the Council
Bluffs area, captured a portion of Belt’s opening remarks on video.
The moment of silence abruptly ended when Belt dropped the microphone.
He proceeded to give a rambling introduction of Reed as the first presenter. As
one attendee explained, “[A] lot of us raised our hands and asked him to please
hold [the microphone] up closer to his mouth so we could understand him. But
it was still muffled; and, you know, we couldn’t understand what he’s saying.”
Another stated that Belt was “waving [the microphone] as he was talking” and
that she “could not follow what he was saying.” And another turned to her
husband during Belt’s speech and asked, “Is he drunk?” She also texted a board
member to ask if Belt was drunk.
Belt briefly left the stage during Reed’s presentation and sat down at a
table where he began sifting through papers. County Auditor Mary Ann Hanusa
was seated on stage and reported that Belt’s actions at the table were “so loud
that it drew [her] attention away from looking at Doug Reed over to where the
sound was coming from.” She texted someone during the meeting, saying,
“SB drunk.”
Belt returned to the stage during Reed’s presentation and walked behind
the table of waiting presenters. He stopped behind presenter Suzanne Watson
and began patting and rubbing her back before trying to talk to her. “[B]y that
time,” an attendee remarked, “everybody was watching Mr. Belt. They w[ere not]
listening to Mr. Reed.” This attendee texted board member Brian Shea, saying,
“SB is drunk. Embarrassing.” Board member Susan Miller received a text from
a different concerned citizen asking, “Is he drunk?”
In the meantime, county staff and other board members tried to formulate
a plan for Belt’s exit. Shea and board member Tim Wichman stepped into the
6
lobby to discuss next steps when they encountered Starlyn Perdue entering the
building. Perdue, the chair of the county Republican Party, had already received
a text from her husband in the meeting about Belt’s behavior and joined the
conversation when she overheard Wichman and Shea discussing Belt.
Perdue took the lead, approaching the stage and motioning for Belt. She
asked Belt if she could ask him a question about the recent Council Bluffs City
Council election, and Belt followed her out of the room. Reed expressed
frustration with “try[ing] to grab control of the room” because “[e]verybody’s
attention was not on who was coming to present but who was leaving the stage.”
Wichman subsequently approached Gerber, the PR manager, while Reed
was presenting and told her to figure out how to keep Belt away from the
microphone. She ultimately took over Belt’s emcee duties for the rest of the
meeting, which included conducting a question-and-answer session at the end
of the meeting. Wichman retrieved Belt’s phone from the stage, then returned to
the lobby, where he found Belt calling Shea a “jackoff” and threatening to “kick
[his] ass.”
Perdue and Shea explained that this outburst was the result of Shea telling
Belt that he could not go back into the meeting. The encounter was captured on
surveillance video, but it is difficult to discern. Several attendees testified that
they could hear loud voices. For instance, Gerber testified, “There’s an audible,
loud argument that takes place. I couldn’t hear exactly what was being said, but
I could certainly hear the voices.” A Carson city employee with building keys left
the meeting room to shut the doors and redirect the lobby conversation to a
multipurpose room.
Perdue, Wichman, and Shea alternated in and out of the room with Belt
as they tried to navigate how to handle the situation. Perdue audio-recorded
7
parts of their conversations while she was in the room. The first recording starts
with someone telling Belt that he had had too much to drink, to which Belt
responded, “I don’t care what you say; there ain’t nobody in that audience that
said anything.” Someone interrupted Belt to clarify that the attendees were
“looking at us and wondering what’s going on,” and Belt replied, “Yeah, ‘cause
you guys are fuck ups.” Belt asked, “Are you guys gonna test me?” and reiterated
that he had “followed the agenda.” At no point did anyone ask Belt to perform
field sobriety testing.
Shea and Wichman left the room and relayed a message to Matt Wyant,
the county director of planning and development, who was on stage waiting to
present. Specifically, Wyant’s deputy “ask[ed] [him] if [he] had notes on [his]
presentation because she was going to take over and that [his] presence was
being requested in the hallway.” When Wyant told his deputy that he would not
leave the stage unless it was an official request, the deputy informed him that it
was at Wichman’s request.
Meanwhile, Perdue was alone with Belt, who was complaining about Shea
and Wichman policing his drinking. He is captured on the audio recording
stating, “There ain’t enough people out there; these two guys, they ain’t got the
best interests of the county; they’ve both got their own interests.” Wichman and
Shea returned to the room with Wyant to find Belt “sitting on a folding
table . . . [with] his legs kicked straight out in the air.”
Shea asked if everything was going all right, and Belt replied, “Yeah, except
for you fuckin’ nitwits,” and the pair got into a brief argument before Perdue
redirected the conversation. Wyant tried to persuade Belt to let him drive Belt
home, and Wichman reiterated to Belt that he needed to leave. Belt initially
8
refused, discussing how the people had elected him and how he “could bury
[Wichman] in an election.”
Wyant continued attempting to persuade Belt to leave with him, telling
Belt that others could inform attendees that Belt left due to a medical emergency.
Belt replied, “I don’t give a fuck,” but Wyant was eventually able to get Belt to
leave with him. Perdue retrieved her husband, Chris, and the group agreed that
Wyant would drive Belt home to Council Bluffs in Belt’s vehicle with Chris
following so that Wyant would have a ride back to his own vehicle in Carson.
Wyant testified that it took “about 45 minutes” to get to Belt’s home from the
town hall, amounting to around a ninety-minute round trip for him.
When he entered Belt’s truck, Wyant noticed “a number” of prescription
pills sitting on the passenger seat. “Some of them had just been picked up. Some
of them . . . were bottles. Some of them were in bags.” He also observed a tumbler
cup in the cupholder. Wyant recalled that they “talked about kind of everything
from 1975 on,” and Wyant even asked Belt if he needed to see a doctor. Belt
declined.
Wyant did not smell alcohol on Belt, though he acknowledged that he is a
former smoker who routinely uses gum and nicotine pouches that could affect
his smell. As they were approaching Belt’s house, a police officer was
coincidentally conducting a traffic stop near his driveway, and Belt exclaimed,
“They called the cops on me. They are here to arrest me.” Wyant dropped Belt off
without issue.
News of Belt’s behavior at the town hall quickly spread, as The Daily
Nonpareil uploaded its reporter’s video of Belt’s opening remarks on its website
and YouTube channel. The day after the town hall, Belt spoke with Andrew Smith
of The Daily Nonpareil for a news article titled “Supervisor Scott Belt left a town
9
hall early after speaking and moving erratically.” The article described how Belt
introduced the meeting “with rambling, slurred speech and uncoordinated body
movements” as he “bounced between a couple remarks before asking the room
to pray for the troops, their grandkids and whatever is going on in their lives.”
Belt told The Daily Nonpareil “that his behavior was caused by medication,
as he has undergone medical procedures recently” and that “he visited the doctor
[the morning after the town hall] to ‘figure out what was going on.’ ” However,
“Belt did not elaborate any further on his medical history, describing it as a
‘HIPAA deal.’ ”2 He did not admit to being drunk, responding, “I don’t know that
that would be accurate.”
The article also quoted a Carson resident who attended the meeting and
stated of Belt, “He was drunk. That guy was drunk. He got escorted out.” It
discussed how “Belt loudly flipped through papers,” drew attention from Reed’s
presentation by returning to the stage to stand behind the presenters, and
“was escorted into a hall outside the event alongside Supervisors Brian Shea and
Tim Wichman,” where “[a] few brief loud noises could be heard from the hall
before doors were shut.”
As word of the town hall spread and the county investigated, it discovered
other allegations against Belt. On November 14, nine days after the town hall
incident, the county attorney petitioned to remove Belt from office under Iowa
Code section 66.1A(6).3 Attached to the petition was an affidavit from Jasmine
2HIPAA is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Pub. L.
No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 18, 26, 29, and 42 U.S.C.). Under HIPAA regulations, a covered entity generally is not permitted to use or disclose protected health information to others. 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a) (2025). Nothing in HIPAA prevents an individual from disclosing their own health information to others.
3Iowa Code section 66.3(5) authorizes “the county attorney of the county where the duties
of the office are to be performed” to file a removal petition against county officers.
10
Elmore, the county’s human resources director since October 6, 2025. Elmore’s
affidavit stated she had “received recent complaints from several county
employees about alleged verbally abusive and bullying conduct by Supervisor
Scott Belt” leading up to the town hall.
Elmore reported in her affidavit:
On the morning of November 7, 2025, I went to the Pottawattamie
County Courthouse and fielded concerns from multiple employees
who were concerned about their physical and psychological
well-being should Supervisor Belt come back to the Courthouse. In
response to concerns about one employee’s well-being, I temporarily
relocated that employee’s workplace to another county building.
Upon consultation with the county attorney and sheriff, Elmore temporarily
disabled Belt’s badge access to the courthouse. Elmore’s affidavit also noted that
Belt’s threats to Shea at the town hall “became common knowledge almost
immediately and this has added to the sense of stress for employees of
Pottawattamie County.”
In addition to alleging Belt’s intoxication during the November 5 town hall,
the petition alleged five other instances of intoxication “while acting in his official
capacity as a member of the Pottawattamie County Board of Supervisors.” The
State later dismissed one of those allegations from the petition, leaving the
district court to consider allegations of Belt’s intoxication at the town hall and
on five different occasions.
Here are the additional allegations:4
• November 2, 2025: Belt was intoxicated at the Smith Wildlife Refuge
in Garner Township, where the county maintains the parking lot. While
driving, Belt approached Mark Webb, who was walking his dog, and
asked if he was happy about the location’s maintenance because Belt
4These allegations do not include one allegation that the State dismissed.
11
had ensured that lights were installed there. Belt told Webb about his
role on the Board, which prompted Webb to ask if Belt was one of the
board members who voted to fire the former county engineer. Belt
replied affirmatively, telling Webb that the former county engineer was
a “fucking asshole.” After Webb tossed Belt’s business card back into
his truck, Belt “began directing profanities at Webb” and “kept berating
Webb who asked [Belt] if he wanted to be on video showing how he
treats constituents.” Belt “drove rapidly out of the parking lot all while
continuing to direct profanities at Webb.” Webb observed a cooler in
Belt’s back seat.
• September 24, 2025: Belt attended an event at the Hoff Center in
Council Bluffs, “where [the] Iowa West [Foundation] was releasing the
results of its recent Community Survey to community leaders prior to
its release to the general public.” He “had a stained shirt, was slurring
his words, had two drinks simultaneously in his hands at the bar, and
smelled of alcohol.”
• March 2025: Belt and Shea attended a National Association of
Counties (NAC) conference in Washington, D.C., where Belt “had two
double-shots of Bailey[’]s Irish Cream (an alcoholic liqueur) in his coffee
at breakfast before heading into classes” at the conference. “Just prior
to ordering the first round of alcohol at breakfast, [Belt] told Supervisor
Shea, ‘Your problem is that you don’t know how to drink.’ ”
• October 9, 2024: Belt attended the Metropolitan Area Planning
Agency’s annual meeting in Council Bluffs because the County
Conservation Board was receiving an award. Belt helped welcome
participants and was “obviously intoxicated,” as he “smelled of alcohol,
12
repeatedly dropped his silverware, and was visibly agitated.” Belt
“confronted the Conservation Board member about traffic at the recent
Chappell Roan concert, called event organizers and Westfair Board
members names, and said that he was going to start limiting
attendance at Westfair Amphitheater events in the future.” The
Conservation Board member tried to inform Belt that he was not on the
Westfair Board, but Belt “merely continued on his rant.”
The petition asked the district court to “immediately suspend Scott A. Belt
from office pending the final resolution of this matter as authorized by Iowa Code
§ 66.7.” The district court granted the immediate suspension request that same
day. Belt subsequently applied for the appointment of a judge from outside the
Fourth Judicial District to preside over these proceedings under Iowa Code
section 66.13, which we granted on November 18.
A two-day trial occurred on December 3 and 4. Belt did not attend the
second day of trial and offered no reason for his absence. Twenty-five witnesses
testified for the State about what occurred at The Bar’N and Grill and the town
hall, the additional allegations of intoxication against Belt, and the fallout from
Belt’s town hall behavior.
For instance, PR manager Gerber testified that the town hall situation was
“a PR nightmare” and detailed how it overshadowed positive county events. She
lamented, “[W]hen launching these positive initiatives and trying to get this
positive information out there, ultimately the things that are going to still end up
on the front page of the paper are things about this case.” Reed testified that
“[j]ust about every conversation” at his first Iowa State Association of Counties
Board of Directors meeting involved Belt, as his town hall behavior “was alluded
to, joked about, discussed, [and] asked about.” Carson resident Lori Crum
13
attended the meeting to “put names with faces,” but she testified, “I wouldn’t be
able to tell you who was who now because the meeting was so -- the beginning
was so distracting.”
Eric Hough, who testified about his encounter with Belt at the October 9,
2024 awards banquet, explained why he did not come forward about it until after
the town hall. Hough testified,
Mr. Belt is a very powerful individual. He likes to wield his authority.
Taking a tongue lashing and him having maybe a few too many to
drink or a lot too many [to] drink was not something that I felt would
gain any traction if I had brought it up at the time of the event.
Several others testified that Belt’s personality had become more
“aggressive” over the past fifteen months, coinciding with his time as the Board’s
chair. This included Council Bluffs Mayor Matthew Walsh, who testified that Belt
had become “very outspoken, very aggressive, very opinionated.” Likewise, board
member Miller remarked, “[Belt’s] become aggressive, kind of argumentative,
difficult to have a conversation with.” Perdue also echoed this characterization
of Belt.
Belt called five witnesses, each of whom discussed their positive
experiences working with Belt in different capacities and claimed they never had
reason to believe he was intoxicated or unprofessional. During closing, the State
dismissed one of its allegations of intoxication against Belt for lack of evidence,
submitting five allegations of intoxication to the district court.
In an oral ruling, the district court found that “[t]he evidence shows clearly,
satisfactorily, and convincingly” that Belt was voluntarily intoxicated and acting
in his official capacity as a board member during the town hall. Regarding the
other four allegations, it found that the State failed to meet its burden of proving
intoxication but opined, “That finding might be different for one or more of those
14
events if the standard here were preponderance of the evidence, but it is not.”
Nevertheless, the district court determined that Belt’s intoxication at the town
hall alone was sufficient to justify his removal from office. We retained Belt’s
timely appeal.
II. Standard of Review.
“There is essentially but one question before us as triers [d]e novo on this
appeal: Does the record compiled below contain sufficient evidence of [Belt’s
intoxication] to necessitate [his] removal from office under the provisions of
Chapter 66.” State v. Bartz, 224 N.W.2d 632, 634 (Iowa 1974). To answer this
question, “we give weight to findings of the trial court, but nonetheless assume
the responsibility of reviewing the entire record in determining the case anew on
appeal.” Id.
III. Analysis.
Belt begins by challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to prove his
intoxication at the town hall. Moreover, he maintains that the district court erred
in concluding that he was acting in his official capacity as a member of the Board
during the town hall. Belt offers alternative grounds for reversal if we agree with
the district court’s conclusions on these two issues.
First, he asks us to reverse and remand the case for further consideration
because the district court failed to recognize its discretion not to remove Belt
from office. Second, Belt asserts that on our de novo review, we should not
exercise our discretion to remove Belt from office for this single instance of
intoxication, and reversal is required so that he can be reinstated to his term.
We address these issues in turn, as necessary.5
5Although Belt initially argued that he was entitled to attorney fees on the dismissed counts, he later conceded in his reply brief that he failed to preserve error on this issue. Thus, we consider it waived and do not address it on appeal.
15
A. The State Presented Sufficient Evidence of Belt’s Intoxication at
the Town Hall. Belt argues that the State failed to establish “by clear,
convincing, satisfactory evidence” that he was intoxicated at the town hall.
State v. Watkins, 914 N.W.2d 827, 837 (Iowa 2018) (quoting State ex rel.
Crowder v. Smith, 4 N.W.2d 267, 268 (Iowa 1942) (per curiam)). This standard
requires proof “by more than a preponderance of evidence, but something less
than establishing a factual situation beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting
Bartz, 224 N.W.2d at 638). Removal proceedings are equitable in nature, see
Iowa Code § 66.18, and our duty in equitable cases on de novo review is “to
examine the whole record and adjudicate rights anew on those propositions
properly presented, provided issue has been raised and error, if any preserved
in the course of trial proceedings.” In re Est. of Cory, 184 N.W.2d 693, 695 (Iowa
1971). In doing so, “we give the trial court’s findings weight ‘but nonetheless
assume the responsibility of reviewing the entire record in determining the case
anew on appeal.’ ” Watkins, 914 N.W.2d at 838 (quoting Bartz, 224 N.W.2d
at 634).
Essentially, the “question before us as triers [d]e novo on this appeal” is
whether the record compiled below contains sufficient evidence of Belt’s
intoxication to justify his removal from office under Iowa Code section 66.1A(6).
Bartz, 224 N.W.2d at 634. Here, the district court removed Belt from office for
his intoxication at the town hall and concluded the State failed to prove its other
allegations of intoxication. The State does not argue on appeal that any of those
other grounds should have been sustained, so we review only whether the record
compiled below contains sufficient evidence of Belt’s intoxication at the town
hall.
16
A person is intoxicated within the meaning of Iowa Code section 66.1A(6)
“when he is so far under the influence of intoxicating liquors that his passions
are visibly excited or his judgment impaired.” State ex rel. Cosson v. Baughn,
143 N.W. 1100, 1101 (Iowa 1913) (per curiam) (quoting State v. Pierce, 21 N.W.
195, 197 (Iowa 1884)). This includes when his alcohol use has altered his reason
or faculties, caused him to lose control of his person or body, or rendered him
incoherent. Id.; see also Smith v. Shagnasty’s, Inc., 688 N.W.2d 67, 72 (Iowa
2004) (listing the same or comparable factors to define “intoxication” in suits
brought under Iowa’s dramshop statute, Iowa Code § 123.92 (2001)). The State
presented ample evidence that Belt was intoxicated at the town hall—despite the
absence of any law-enforcement sobriety tests.
The audio and video recordings of Belt perhaps best depict his
intoxication. They capture Belt threatening to assault Shea, swearing at fellow
board members, slurring his words, and incoherently rambling, along with his
dropping the microphone and distracting behavior on stage during Reed’s
presentation. The State also presented several witnesses to corroborate its claim
that Belt consumed alcoholic beverages at The Bar’N and Grill before attending
the town hall. Likewise, multiple witnesses from the town hall testified that they
noticed “a heavy alcohol smell,” that his “eyes looked funny,” and that his
behavior “was a little bit more loud and animated than normal.” Many reported
texting others during the town hall with their belief that Belt was intoxicated.
Contrary to Belt’s argument, the State was not required to rule out that
his behavior was due to a medical issue. Cf. State v. Schories, 827 N.W.2d 659,
665 (Iowa 2013) (“Once a defendant has presented evidence sufficient to show
the prescription drug defense applies [to a charge of operating a vehicle while
under the influence of a controlled substance], the State has the burden of
17
disproving each element of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.”). Notably,
despite telling The Daily Nonpareil “that his behavior was caused by medication,”
Belt never introduced evidence about any medications that he was on or how
those might have affected him independent of alcohol. In any event, the State
presented “clear, convincing, satisfactory” evidence of Belt’s intoxication at the
town hall, so we affirm the district court’s intoxication finding. Watkins,
914 N.W.2d at 837 (quoting Smith, 4 N.W.2d at 268).
B. The State Was Not Required to Prove That Belt Was Acting in His
Official Capacity During the Town Hall. Belt challenges the district court’s
conclusion that he was acting in his official capacity as a Pottawattamie County
supervisor during the town hall, arguing that he was not performing a statutory
duty at the time.6 The State maintains that this limitation is not found in the
plain text of Iowa Code section 66.1A(6), which is where the analysis of Belt’s
argument should begin and end. We review questions of statutory interpretation
“for correction of errors at law.” Watkins, 914 N.W.2d at 837.
Iowa Code section 66.1A provides:
Any appointive or elective officer, except such as may be removed
only by impeachment, holding any public office in the state or in any
division or municipality thereof, may be removed from office by the
district court for any of the following reasons:
1. For willful or habitual neglect or refusal to perform the
duties of the office.
2. For willful misconduct or maladministration in office.
3. For corruption.
6The State contends that Belt waived this argument because he “challenges the district
court’s statutory interpretation but does not challenge the court’s finding that Belt acted in his official capacity at the townhall.” We agree with Belt that “[t]his is splitting hairs,” as the district court’s conclusion that Belt was acting in his official capacity depends on the district court’s interpretation of the removal statute.
18
4. For extortion.
5. Upon conviction of a felony.
6. For intoxication, or upon conviction of being intoxicated.
7. Upon conviction of violating the provisions of chapter 68A.
8. For failure to pay a fine imposed pursuant to section 39A.6
and not dismissed pursuant to chapter 17A.
Our statutory interpretation analysis begins by determining whether the
statute is ambiguous. Murillo v. State, 13 N.W.3d 800, 808 (Iowa 2024). “We will
not resort to our rules of construction when the statutory text and meaning are
clear.” Hines-Miller v. Teter, 35 N.W.3d 321, 329–30 (Iowa 2026). That is the case
here, as the statutory language in Iowa Code section 66.1A(6) is clear in allowing
for the removal of an elected official “[f]or intoxication” regardless of whether it
was in the performance of an official duty.
The other subsections of the statute further support that conclusion. See
Doe v. State, 943 N.W.2d 608, 610 (Iowa 2020) (“In determining the ordinary and
fair meaning of the statutory language at issue, we take into consideration the
language’s relationship to other provisions of the same statute and other
provisions of related statutes.”). Unlike section 66.1A(6), other subsections
authorizing removal are expressly tied to the official’s performance of official
duties. This includes removal “[f]or willful or habitual neglect or refusal to
perform the duties of the office” under section 66.1A(1) and “[f]or willful
misconduct or maladministration in office” under section 66.1A(2). (Emphases
added.) We confirmed in State v. Watkins that “the phrase ‘in office’ modifies both
‘willful misconduct’ and ‘maladministration,’ ” thereby requiring the State to
show “that the alleged wrongdoer’s acts were committed within the scope of his
or her official responsibilities.” 914 N.W.2d at 840.
19
Belt relies on similar language in State v. Welsh, 79 N.W. 369, 371 (Iowa
1899), in arguing that the State had to prove he was acting in his official capacity
while intoxicated at the town hall. There, we reversed a directed verdict for a
sheriff facing removal, holding that a jury could find willful misconduct in his
voluntary intoxication while transporting a prisoner and willful neglect of duty
in allowing the prisoner about thirty hours of freedom. Id. at 371–72. We
explained, “Intoxication, when not occurring while in the discharge of an official
duty, is not a ground of removal from office.” Id. The differences are that
intoxication was not an enumerated ground for removal then and that, unlike
the officials in Watkins and Welsh, Belt faces removal solely “[f]or intoxication”
under Iowa Code section 66.1A(6).
The legislature chose to limit certain grounds for removal through
language explicitly connecting them to official responsibilities, and removal for
intoxication is not one of them. See Iowa Code § 66.1A. “A material variation in
terms suggests a variation in meaning.” Bribriesco-Ledger v. Klipsch, 957 N.W.2d
646, 650 (Iowa 2021). If the legislature had wanted to limit removal for
intoxication to situations in which an official is intoxicated while acting in their
official capacity, it would have used the same modifiers that it used in Iowa Code
section 66.1A(1) and (2). See Bribriesco-Ledger, 957 N.W.2d at 650 (“If the
legislature meant the same thing, we expect it would have said the same thing.”).
This interpretation aligns with our precedent governing the removal of a
public official for intoxication. For instance, in State ex rel. Kirby v. Henderson,
124 N.W. 767, 769 (Iowa 1910) (per curiam), we rejected the public official’s
argument that his intoxication during business hours was not “official
misconduct” because “he undertook no official duties during the period of
intoxication.” We explained, “The fallacy of the argument is that it is purely
20
theoretical, and not practical.” Id. And in State ex rel. Cosson v. Baughn, we held
that the Harlan mayor should be removed for intoxication after he drank
whiskey, went downtown one evening, and drew a crowd—large enough to
obstruct the streets—with his loud, profane, and slurred speech until the city
marshal dispersed it. 143 N.W. at 1102–03.
In reaching this conclusion, we recognize Belt’s concern that authorizing
the removal of an elected official from office for intoxication regardless of whether
it occurred during the performance of an official duty “risks unintended
consequences.” As Belt notes, “Elected officials may be approached by the public
at any time, in any place, because of the office they hold.” But “unambiguous
statutory language is the strongest evidence of the legislature’s intent,” In re J.C.,
857 N.W.2d 495, 500 (Iowa 2014), and we cannot read a limitation into Iowa
Code section 66.1A(6) that is not written in the statute, see Hines-Miller,
35 N.W.3d at 330.
Plus, we think the statutory scheme under Iowa Code chapter 66 is built
to deter removal from becoming a political weapon or regular legal action. These
deterrents include limitations on who may file a removal petition, bond
requirements for filing a removal petition, and witness fees. See Iowa Code
§§ 66.3, .4, .10, .28. Additionally, if the petition is dismissed, the government is
responsible for reimbursing the defendant “for the reasonable and necessary
expenses incurred by the defendant in making a defense, including reasonable
attorney’s fees, as determined by the court.” Id. § 66.23. Finally, judicial
involvement is intended to guard against politicization of the remedy. In
exercising its discretion, the district court here found an absence of political
motivation for the proceedings against Belt, and we do the same on our de novo
21
review. In sum, the removal process contains ample safeguards that reflect its
“penal or quasi-criminal” character. Watkins, 914 N.W.2d at 839.
We agree with the State that it was not required to connect Belt’s
intoxication to the exercise of an official duty for his removal under Iowa Code
section 66.1A(6). Nevertheless, whether a public official was acting in their
official capacity while committing misconduct is an equitable consideration for
the district court in ruling on the removal petition.
C. The District Court Recognized and Exercised Its Discretion in the
Removal Decision. Belt asks us to reverse his removal and remand his case to
the district court because the district court failed to recognize and exercise its
discretion in reaching its removal decision. The State maintains that Belt failed
to preserve error on this claim because he never filed a motion for
reconsideration under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) to bring the issue to
the district court’s attention.7 But “[w]hen we speak of error preservation, all we
mean is that a party has an obligation to raise an issue in the district court and
obtain a decision on the issue so that an appellate court can review the merits
of the decision actually rendered.” State v. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 198 (Iowa
2022); see also Segura v. State, 889 N.W.2d 215, 220 (Iowa 2017) (holding that
error was preserved because the district court’s ruling established that it had
considered and decided the argument at issue on appeal); Lamasters v. State,
821 N.W.2d 856, 864 (Iowa 2012) (“If the court’s ruling indicates that the court
considered the issue and necessarily ruled on it, even if the court’s reasoning is
7Belt’s brief contains a section titled “Error Preservation & Standard of Review,” but he
never explains how he preserved error on his appellate claims in this section or elsewhere in his brief. It is only after the State challenged error preservation that Belt addressed the issue in his reply brief. This is contrary to Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.903(2)(a)(8)(1), which states that an appellant’s brief “must contain . . . [a] statement addressing how the issue was preserved for appellate review, with references to the places in the record where the issue was raised and decided in the district court.”
22
‘incomplete or sparse,’ the issue has been preserved.” (quoting Meier v. Senecaut,
641 N.W.2d 532, 540 (Iowa 2002))). And the record shows that the district court
was aware of its discretion and exercised it, so we can review Belt’s claim on the
merits.
The discretionary nature of these proceedings was evident throughout,
beginning with the State’s opening statement declaring that the district court
needed to address three issues—one each of fact, law, and equity. The State
explained,
The issue of fact is whether Mr. Belt was intoxicated on the
occasions that have been alleged in the petition. The issue of law is
whether or not these are official activities such -- or whether that
even matters, whether these are official activities that were related
to his job as county supervisor. The issue of equity is that, assuming
that the Court answers those questions in the affirmative, does
justice demand his removal from office.
Belt’s counsel “agree[d] with [the State’s] summation,” and both sides
reiterated the equitable nature of the proceedings in closing, with the State
emphasizing, “This is a case of equity. What is full and complete justice in this
case?” Belt, too, stated, “[W]e look at the equity issue, and that is is the town
hall enough? . . . [G]iven the totality of the evidence and the circumstances, this
just does not meet the equitable requirement for removing someone from office.”
The district court’s oral ruling acknowledged the equitable, and thus
discretionary, nature of its removal decision. After concluding that Belt was
voluntarily intoxicated at the town hall, the district court declared,
[T]he defense urges the Court to give careful consideration to what
it terms, quote, the equity issue, end quote, which it frames by
asking “Is just the town hall enough?” The Court does give that
question careful consideration. In fact, the Court finds this to be the
closest decision in this case. The Court believes that the question is
rightly posed.
23
The district court further stated that “Chapter 66 places significant
authority in the hands of the judiciary,” and that “it cannot be said that the
legislature did not intend to allow courts to remove an elected official on that
basis [of intoxication].” (Emphasis added.) Finally, the district court used its
discretion in considering Belt’s claim that the removal petition was politically
motivated, concluding that claim was “nothing more than a specter and is devoid
of any proof in these proceedings, and the Court does not find such a political
motivation at play in this case.” It ruled, “upon careful consideration . . . that the
petition should be and hereby is granted.” (Emphasis added.)
That the district court did not explicitly discuss “Belt’s positive
contributions to the community or his character as a public official” in explaining
its decision, as Belt maintains it should have, does not amount to a failure to
exercise discretion. “A review of the record . . . reveals that the court had before
it several sources of information and that it considered other relevant
factors . . . .” State v. McKeever, 276 N.W.2d 385, 388 (Iowa 1979).
Consequently, remanding for the district court to reweigh the evidence and
exercise its discretionary authority is unnecessary.
D. Belt’s Intoxication and Corresponding Behavior Were Sufficient to
Justify His Removal. Belt argues in any event that his removal is not in the
public interest, characterizing his removal as “an injustice both to him and voters
of Pottawattamie County who elected him to serve.” Belt asserts that removal is
appropriate only in exceptional cases when the public official’s action “is marked
by such grave misconduct or such flagrant incompetency as demonstrates his
unfitness for the position.” State ex rel. Barker v. Meek, 127 N.W. 1023, 1026
(Iowa 1910). Again, he relies on our analysis of cases in which the public official
24
was facing removal for willful misconduct as opposed to intoxication under Iowa
Code section 66.1A(6).
Those cases required the State to prove that the public official acted with
“willful intent to do wrong [and] an evil purpose . . . by clear, convincing,
satisfactory evidence.” Watkins, 914 N.W.2d at 837 (alteration in original)
(quoting Smith, 4 N.W.2d at 268). In that context, we explained, “Conduct may
be voluntary, thoughtless, or even reckless, yet not necessarily willful. Nor does
unlawfulness necessarily imply willfulness.” Meek, 127 N.W. at 1024 (citation
omitted).
Unfortunately for Belt, that heightened standard does not apply to cases
of removal for intoxication under Iowa Code section 66.1A(6) because “willful” is
the dispositive word to trigger that standard. This has long been the case. For
example, in 1910, we examined the meaning of “willful misconduct in office”
under the removal statute and concluded that “willful,” when used in statutes of
a penal nature, “is held with but few exceptions to imply an evil or corrupt motive
or intent.” Id.
Shortly thereafter, we considered whether public officials facing removal
for willfully neglecting to perform specific duties of their office “acted in good faith
or whether they acted willfully.” State v. Roth, 144 N.W. 339, 345 (Iowa 1913)
(en banc). This was because the alleged duties at issue had not been settled
under the law, and “[t]o hold that defendants should be removed for this would
be to hold that such officers must correctly interpret the laws in advance of
decisions by the courts, at the peril of removal if they fail to do so.” Id. at 344.
We stressed these principles again most recently in Watkins, reaffirming that the
removal of a public official for “willful misconduct or maladministration in office”
requires “evidence that the official committed the charged acts ‘intentionally,
25
deliberately, with a [subjectively] bad or evil purpose, contrary to known duty.’ ”
914 N.W.2d at 842 (alteration in original) (quoting Roth, 144 N.W. at 344).
As we have explained in addressing Belt’s argument regarding official
capacity, the legislature chose to limit certain grounds for removal through
language explicitly connecting them to “willful” misconduct. See Iowa Code
§ 66.1A. It did not do that for intoxication, and it is not our role to do so now.
See, e.g., State v. Rhodes, 6 N.W.3d 741, 752 (Iowa 2024) (“We cannot give effect
to Iowa Code section 724.25(2) by reading out the language the legislature
chose—‘as used in this chapter’—while reading in language—‘antique firearm’—that
does not appear in section 724.26.”); Bribriesco-Ledger, 957 N.W.2d at 650
(“A material variation in terms suggests a variation in meaning.”). The same goes
for our ability to address Belt’s misdirected policy concern that authorizing
removal for intoxication absent a finding of willfulness “would expose untold
numbers of elected officials to removal” because “the number of elected officials
who have been intoxicated at a public function is not insignificant.” See In re
Guardianship & Conservatorship of Radda, 955 N.W.2d 203, 214 (Iowa 2021)
(“Policy arguments to amend the statute should be directed to the legislature.”
(quoting In re Est. of Whalen, 827 N.W.2d 184, 187 (Iowa 2013))).
Regardless of willfulness, Belt concedes “that a single instance of
intoxication could be sufficient to establish removal, under the right set of facts,”
though he does not hypothesize what those facts might be. He simply disagrees
with the district court’s conclusion that his single instance of intoxication was
sufficient for removal. In legal terms, Belt is arguing that the district court failed
to properly balance the equities on both sides in deciding to remove him from
office. See Petty v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins., 15 N.W.2d 613, 618 (Iowa 1944) (“A court
26
of equity seeks to do justice between the parties by penetrating to the very
substance of the matter.”).
On our de novo review of the record, we disagree because we conclude that
Belt’s removal best protects public interests. See Watkins, 914 N.W.2d at 839
(“[Removal proceedings] are meant to protect public interests,” and they “exist to
provide a remedy when the misconduct is serious enough that waiting until the
next election is inadequate.”). According to Belt, his history of being “a capable,
hard-working public servant for over 20 years” outweighs his “10 minutes of
awkwardness at the town hall,” which he maintains is “lightweight” compared to
the conduct of the intoxicated public officials in Henderson and Welsh. Frankly,
Belt downplays the situation. He made a mockery of the town hall, and that
“10 minutes of awkwardness” extended well beyond that time frame when the
story became news.
As the county attorney aptly summarized during closing argument,
[Belt] brought shame to his office and to the county. He has
put co-workers, department heads, elected officials, private citizens
through this entire process. He has a right to do that, but he’s taken
no responsibility for his actions.
If Scott Belt the day after the town hall would have said, “I
made a mistake. I had a bad day. I’ve had some family stress. I’ve
had some mental health problems. I’m going to get some help, but I
would really like to continue to serve the Pottawattamie County
citizens,” that would have made my job tougher. I would have had
to have a hard swallow about whether this petition for removal gets
filed, but that’s not what happened.
I mean, he’s not taken responsibility for his actions. He has
disrupted county operations. He has distracted from a lot of the good
work of the county and the good events. He didn’t care enough to
show up today to half of his trial.
Moreover, we agree with the district court that he was acting in his official
capacity while he was intoxicated at the town hall. This is an aggravating factor
27
for Belt. And though the district court concluded that the State failed to prove
its four additional allegations of intoxication by “clear, convincing, satisfactory”
evidence, the unrebutted testimony from the witnesses regarding these
allegations indicates to us that Belt’s intoxication at the town hall was not an
isolated event. Several witnesses testified that Belt had become more aggressive
and difficult to work with in the time aligning with those other allegations. An
affidavit from the county human resources director that was filed with the
removal petition stated that she had “received recent complaints from several
county employees about alleged verbally abusive and bullying conduct by
Supervisor Scott Belt” leading up to the town hall.
Additionally, the record is unrebutted that Belt consumed two double
shots of Bailey’s at breakfast before heading into class sessions of the NAC
conference in Washington, D.C., a conference that the taxpayers of
Pottawattamie County were presumably paying him to attend. While there may
be debate about whether Belt was intoxicated at the time, the behavior was
inappropriate and consistent with that of someone who had an unaddressed
drinking problem. Likewise, Belt’s behavior during the September 2025 event
was such that one witness who attended the event “flippantly remarked” to his
colleague upon leaving, “ ‘Hey, let’s get in the car before [Belt] is out there,’
because, obviously, we would be heading to the same [area]” and did not want
to be on the road at the same time as Belt.
Removal “is heroic in nature and relatively drastic in a system where the
usual method of removing officeholders is by resort to the ballot.” Watkins,
914 N.W.2d at 839 (quoting Bartz, 224 N.W.2d at 638). It should be used only
“when the misconduct is serious enough that waiting until the next election is
inadequate.” Id. For the reasons explained above, the record in this case meets
28
that high standard necessary for the removal of Belt from his elected office for
intoxication under Iowa Code section 66.1A(6). Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.
IV. Conclusion.
We affirm the district court’s removal of Belt from his position on the
Pottawattamie County Board of Supervisors.
District court judgment affirmed.