Full Opinion

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