Veteran Iowa’s researcher J. Ann Selzer is trying to reject the president’s president, the DEA Moines registration and his controlling company Gannett after an incorrectly predicted November survey that the ex -vice -President Harris led the state of Hawkeye.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expressions (FIRE), an organization of freedom of expression, Filed a motion To a federal judge on Friday, in the name of Selzer, arguing that research is political speeches and, therefore, are protected by the first amendment.
“The claims of complainants are barred by the first amendment and the court must discard them with prejudice,” Fire said in the court document. “In the United States, there is no claim of ‘fraudulent news’. No court in any jurisdiction has ever kept a cause of action can be valid, and few plaintiffs have never tried to bring these strange claims. ”
The selzer survey on November 2, which shocked many politicians across the country, showed Harris for three points in Iowa over Trump – who won the state in 2016 and 2020. The president eventually won the 2024 overall elections and the state in 14 points.
Later, in November, the researcher said he would retire, writing that “a year ago I advised the record that would not renew when my 2024 contract expired with the latest polls as it went to other enterprises and opportunities.”
The then GOP presidential candidate went after Selzer for the accident, accusing her of electoral “fraud” and saying that an investigation must be requested.
Trump’s legal team sued the registration and selzer in mid -December at the Iowa State Court, claiming that the researcher violated the state’s consumer fraud laws for misleading voters. They also asked her to be prevented from “releasing other misleading research” and requested a value -specified value.
“For a long time, leftist researchers have tried to influence electoral results through manipulated research that have unacceptable error rates and are not based on widely accepted voting methodologies,” the president said in the process.
Selzer vehemently denied any intention to influence electoral research.
The fire observed in the registration of Friday that the plaintiffs “fail on the threshold to claim any recoverable damage and do not declare plausible claims, either by law or about the facts as alleged.”
“No court has ever accepted claims like these, and this court should not be the first,” the organization wrote.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story