Former GOP Staffer: Senate Candidate Joni Ernst “Did and Said Nothing” to Stop Sexual Harassment

Her allegations have sparked a tug-of-war in Iowa between Democrats and Republicans eager to woo women voters.

GOP Iowa Senate candidate Joni Ernst debates Democrat Bruce Braley.Jerry Mennenga/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


A lawsuit filed last week by a former GOP staffer in the Iowa state Senate claims that US Senate candidate Joni Ernst, a Republican, saw male colleagues sexually harass a female employee when Ernst served in the state Senate and “did and said” nothing to stop the abuse.

Kirsten Anderson, a former communications director for the Iowa Senate Republican Caucus, filed the lawsuit against the caucus on October 16. She claims that she was a victim of sexual harassment when she worked for the caucus and that when she complained to her superiors, she was fired. “By way of just one example, Sen. Joni Ernst of Red Oak and Sen. Sandra Greiner of Keota witnessed sexual innuendo and inappropriate behavior exhibited by their male colleagues and did and said nothing while female staffers stood by unable to say anything,” the suit alleges.

The lawsuit mentions Ernst just once, and Anderson does not name Ernst, who is a member of the caucus, as a defendant. But Democrats in Iowa, where Ernst is in an extremely tight race against Democratic candidate Bruce Braley, have seized on the allegation in the final weeks of the campaign.

In a statement sent to reporters, Ernst denied that she had witnessed sexual harassment in the Legislature, adding, “As a former colleague, I hope [Anderson] is not being exploited ahead of the election.” A spokeswoman for Ernst called Anderson’s lawsuit “an obvious effort by Bruce Braley to smear Joni Ernst two weeks before the election.”

Three prominent Iowa Democrats pounced on those remarks at a news conference organized by a consulting firm with ties to Braley’s campaign.

“Rather than express concern for a young woman who worked under her, she immediately attempted to impugn the integrity and motivation of that young woman.”

“Rather than express concern for a young woman who worked under her, she immediately attempted to impugn the integrity and motivation of that young woman,” Bonnie Campbell, the former attorney general of Iowa, said at the conference. “This is, in the world we inhabit, classic blaming the victim. I think the most offensive thing is the suggestion that this young woman, who has done something very courageous…was politically motivated by secret outsiders and that she didn’t have either the intellect or the integrity to make her own decision about whether to file such a very serious lawsuit.”

“I’m a supporter of Bruce Braley, but that wasn’t my motivation,” Campbell told Mother Jones, explaining her role in orchestrating the press conference. “I said what I said because Ernst’s record is really bad on women’s issues and I don’t want her to win this election.”

Michael J. Carroll, Anderson’s attorney, denied that there are political motivations to the lawsuit or the timing. “We were on a deadline,” Carroll tells Mother Jones. “We had to file the lawsuit by October 29 or we forever lost the right to do so…You could say, well why didn’t we file it earlier? That only would have given the candidates and campaigns more time to make something out of it.”

“While the lawsuit mentions state Sen. Ernst, it also mentions many other state senators, including Democratic senators,” Carroll continues. “It had no political angle at all. It was a purely factual statement about who had seen or heard or experienced or did certain things in their ordinary jobs as state senators. That’s it.”

Her suit echoes claims that she made to the press and the Iowa Civil Rights Commission after she was fired in May 2013. At that time, Anderson said that she had overhead a GOP staffer make an explicit comment about the perceived sexual orientation of the Senate clerk and that a Republican state senator had made sexual comments to her.

“[This] is not about public embarrassment. My goal is to change the work environment at the Capitol.”

Anderson said that she had complained to senior Republican staffers about a pattern of harassing behavior among GOP lawmakers and staff. She also said that she had sent a memo outlining her complaints to a senior Republican staffer and was dismissed later that day. Responding to those allegations, a Republican staffer said that the party had fired Anderson for substandard work. “[This] is not about public embarrassment,” Anderson said back then. “My goal is to change the work environment at the Capitol.”

A spokesman for the state Senate Republicans declined to comment to Mother Jones.

Braley and Ernst have gone back and forth on the subject of sexual harassment before as both vie for support from female voters. (A recent poll shows Braley winning women by double digits.) Ernst made headlines in August after she told Time that during her time in the military, “I had comments, passes, things like that.” She added, “These were some things where I was able to say stop and it simply stopped but there are other circumstances both for women and for men where they don’t stop and they may be afraid to report it.” In another interview, Ernst promised to combat sexual assault in the military, if elected.

Shortly after those interviews, Democratic operatives privately circulated an account of how Ernst had investigated a 2004 sexual-assault allegation made by a soldier under her command when she was a captain in the Iowa National Guard—and alleged she had “covered up” the incident.

Military records obtained by the Register showed that the female soldier under Ernst’s command had not been consistent in her account of the alleged assault and that several eyewitnesses contradicted her initial story. A psychiatrist treating the female soldier, however, concluded that she “exhibited common symptoms of someone who had experienced a rape.” Ernst and other investigating officers concluded that the soldier’s claims were unfounded. Ernst punished the male soldier accused of sexual assault for an alcohol violation he admitted during the investigation.

In response to Democrats’ criticism about Ernst’s role in this episode, her campaign asked a former judge advocate general at Patton Boggs, a white-shoe DC law firm, to review the case. Maj. General Mike Nardotti concluded that Ernst acted properly.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate