Iowa Holds A Major Judicial Election You’ve Heard Next to Nothing About
There aren’t a whole lot of things in politics about which anyone can claim: “This has never happened before!” But in Iowa, a major battle over judicial activism fits the bill. In all the years that Iowans have held to their odd, some would say cozy, system of appointing judges at all levels including the Supreme Court, a justice has never been voted off that court even though they all come up for a vote on a rotating basis. Each election cycle a few justices come up for retention, and in total they face the voters once every eight years. But none has ever been voted out. In 2010, it could happen to three of them at once. Here’s why.
In 1998, Iowa passed its Defense of Marriage Act. The Iowa DOMA has been under attack from the usual groups on the left ever since, and in 2009 the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously struck it down as unconstitutional. And the court took things a few steps farther when the justices also ruled that Iowa’s 160-year history of treating marriage as involving no less and no more than one man and one woman was also unconstitutional. The governor and attorney general, both liberal Democrats, did nothing to represent the people whose representatives had passed DOMA in the first place, so the justices got the last word. Or so it seemed.
Wherever one stands on the question of gay marriage, this ruling was and is the very definition of judicial activism. It produced a result that neither the voters of Iowa nor their elected representatives supported, and it reached beyond the initial scope of the original case against DOMA. It reached far beyond settled law and the Constitution. It has set the entire state on political fire. Newt Gingrich and conservative leader David Barton say that what happens in Iowa on November 2 may be the most important thing to come out of the 2010 midterms, and these midterms may overturn Democratic rule in both houses of Congress and set the nation on course to repeal ObamaCare while hobbling a president. Why do two such heavyweight conservative leaders think Iowa’s judicial elections will be so profound?
Iowa has had it judicial retention system in place since 1962. Finalists for open judgeships are selected by the state bar, which proffers three names to the governor whenever there is an opening on the bench, and the governor picks from the bar’s finalists. They serve 8-year terms and, on a rotating basis, there is a vote on a few of them every two years. Since 1962, only four lower level judges have ever been defeated and no Supreme has ever lost. The vote isn’t a partisan contested election, but a “Yes” for retaining a judge or a “No” for firing them. They routinely win with 75% of the vote. But the three Supremes who are up for retention this year may get fired by the voters of Iowa. The polls are neck and neck. This has truly never happened before. And the DOMA ruling is the prime mover behind all of it.
An activist in Iowa explained it this way: “We know how angry everyone is right now over everything — taxes, ObamaCare, you name it. Now, add something like the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on top of that. People here are even madder at the justices than they are at everything else. No one expected anyone fighting the judges to actually win, but here we are.”
Iowa’s state motto is “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.” That in mind, meet 47-year-old Pastor Jeff Mullen. He is the pastor of the Point of Grace Church in Waukee. Point of Grace is typical of today’s modern, upbeat churches: contemporary music, non-denominational, a young congregation with a median age of 32. It is the state’s fastest-growing church. Mullen, who says he grew up a “pretty unhealthy Baptist” because he loved the theology but not its application, is leading a group called Iowa Pastors. It’s literally two weeks old and its purpose is to call on Iowans to fight judicial activism.
“I’m involved in this because for too many years as a pastor I have been apathetic, or as I like to say pathetic, in that I would not step out and grow some,” Mullen says. “We are called to have a much broader perspective than we have had. I want to see people in heaven but we have a small world view. I believe the guys my age and younger have been sold such a bill of goods that we cannot be involved in politics. I’ve been trying to find ways to get our people involved in civics and stand up for righteousness. And the Iowa justices provided a perfect storm with their DOMA ruling and our extremely liberal governor and attorney general who went along with it and deemed it acceptable.
This Civil Cold War is going on all over the country. It is time to root out the rot.
Do not for one minute assume this will be a Cold war. The entrenched powers have their enablers armed and charged to do their bidding. Vote fraud is unchecked – the voter rolls are KNOWN to have massive inaccuracies, yet the government does nothing about it. “Law Enforcement” has shown NO interest in dealing with criminal violations of election law – just look at the black terrorists at that Philadelphia polling place for an example. Or the current disenfranchisement of military voters by MULTIPLE state elections offices. At some point this will become a HOT civil war. Be prepared, or be surprised. The choice is yours. For now, anyway.
Be prepared, and ready..for just about anything that will/might happen.
Surprised is your own fault.
Yep…it is not only in Chicago that the dead vote early and often!
This needs to happen but further we need to begin the process of having the people not the politicians decide whether federal judges should be retained. These are the most dangerous people in the country and a modicum of oversight needs to be provided by at least a retention vote in the circuit to which they are appointed.
Most people do not pay attention to the elections, much less what is going on.
This has led us to where we are now. We need to do a better job of helping ourselves.
Volunteer, man the phones, hand out flyers, do your part to alert the non voters that they are needed or we are going to lose ourselves!
Please check out this commentary dissecting an anti-marraige ad
that ran in Iowa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzYRKpzg62Y.
thanks!
-another Iowan
Marc Malone
And this is a good place to start it.
So the ACLU and the labor unions are backing the incumbent judges. What more do Iowans need to know?
“Anything”, anything the ACLU and unions support is suspect and all people need to question.
Iowa voters need to send a message that they will no longer be bullied and it carries over to all Americans. So far we have proven to be a body of whiners not doers.
…this is our government, not the politician’s (judge’s) government and we need to let them know it.
Since the vote is “too close to call,” it seems Iowans need to know a whole lot more.
I’m an Iowan, and I’ll tell you what I already know. The judges in Iowa did
exactly as they are supposed to do. They found exclusion of some citizens from the opportunity of marraige to be un-Constitutional.
They found this prospect and fair right to do no harm to anyone, in fact, its true that divorce has decreasedin Iowa sinse that decision.
Judges are not supposed to follow the majority opinion of the day – they rule independently. You simply do not like what they decided.
If you want to save marraige – make sure your relatives date a very long time and understand the troubles they will face.
If you think going forth with same gender marraige is the end of our society, you have been fed a load of bull. Talk to gay people, not just about them. Otherwise, you could be considered an ill-informed coward. Iowa is a great place to live!.
A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate. -Thomas Jefferson. Enough said.
Unless it is a rout, the counters of the vote make the difference. Thomas Jefferson said it best “When injustice becomes law, then rebellion becomes duty.”
Damn!
God Bless Iowa! We are rooting for ya!
I’m a little tired of hearing “judicial activism” every time a court renders a ruling that a conservative doesn’t like.
Ruling a law unconstitutional isn’t judicial activism, its the rightful prerogative of the court as a check against legislative power. The court isn’t supposed to reject or accept laws based on a public opinion poll, it is supposed judge the basis for the law when it considers constitutionality. I haven’t read the deciding opinion on this case, but based on this article the author leaps to the conclusion of “judicial activism” because the court’s decision was unpopular.
Richard #8…. don’t waste your time reading the deciding opinion. You need to read the constitution. Here’s an excerpt: No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a ……..
That’s not a part of the Constitution. It’s found in
* United States Code
o TITLE 28 – JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
+ PART V – PROCEDURE
# CHAPTER 115 – EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY
* Section 1738C
o Section 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof
So if there are constitutional issues which override it, they trump.
“…of any other State….”
That is correct. The Iowa Supreme court ruling is an Iowa ruling.
When people complain about “judicial activism” they are referring to the phenomenon of judges entertaining -novel- interpretations of the Constitution explicitly for the purpose of enabling or quashing particular legislation. And the phenomenon is very real. Do you really believe the Framers of the Constitution ever intended for the Commerce Clause to be interpreted in such a manner that the Federal government could dictate what an individual farmer grows on his own land for his own consumption? Or that the Federal government can mandate that every individual citizen enter into a business contract with another party? It’s ridiculous.
So-Richard says ” I’m a little tired of hearing “judicial activism” every time a court renders a ruling that a conservative doesn’t like.
SO Richard you were absent for the last five thousand years of all cultures, where all cultures (with the possible exception of the Bedouin and a few Mormons) believe marriage to be one man one woman which is a hetrosexual union. You missed that?.
Hmm, do you recall we protect the rights of the minorities, grant every or almost every right to “Gay” couples? including their right to bring up children. (still a big question for many many people) we have hate crime legislation? Richard your gonna pass that off?, because you think we (who are we Richard?) are conservative? Richard how shallow! of you.
Richard; Power hates a vacuum, consequently activism left unchecked results eventually in rebellion for when enough
oxes are gored folks wind up hopefully in the voting booth, if that does not remedy a situation they find unacceptable we will then shortly find ouselves in the street armed. Thats not a good prospect for anyone.
Judicial activism is just as dangerous as any other left unchecked. Iowans may lead the way for the rest of us and “US”
Check “6″
Anyone taking odds on the supremes ruling that the judge retention process is unconstitutional?
It’s high time Iowa amended its rules about judicial candidates. Having an ABA recommendation should be a black mark against that person. The ABA represents a very small, very liberal faction of attorneys, and certainly doesn’t speak for the majority of lawyers. I quit the ABA decades ago for that very reason – extreme left wing views proffered as representing the views of the membership. Better to use a merit system, have practicing lawyers and judges make recommendations of qualified candidates. Bravo Iowa for taking steps to remedy the problem. Many of us are sick of out of control judges overturning the will of the people.
Strictly up to the Iowa voters, so far they have put up with a lot of bull and done nothing. Campaign ads against such judges should be run 24/7. Vote these 3 out and the others will start to take heed.
Most people, me included, do not usually pay a lot of attention to judges..we, me, need to and vote the @$$es out of office!
It’s happening in Colorado too! The chielf justice has allready retired rather than face the voters.
http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/
Unbelievable.
If judges behaved like that in many other countries, they would be assassinated, or riots would be in the streets.
Remember to vote them out people of Iowa. Just a shocking situation.
Go Iowa!
Soros has another insidious project in place besides the Secretary of State takeover to pervert a valid election process.
His Open Society Institute “has spent at least $45.4 million to promote the so-called merit selection system and reduce the influence of citizens and their elected representatives when it comes to picking judges.”
Do you know what’s going on in your state?
Soros has another insidious project in the works besides the Secretary of State takeover to pervert valid elections.
His Open Society Institute “has spent at least $45.4 million to promote the so-called merit selection system and reduce the influence of citizens and their elected representatives when it comes to picking judges.”
Do you know what’s going on in your state?
I live in Iowa and there is very little coverage of the upcoming retentions except on talk radio. I have talked to many of my friends and co-workers here and asked them to vote no on retention.
BTW, when I was old enough to vote my father told said this to me: “I am not going to tell you which party to vote for or which candidate to vote for, I want you to research them, their views, their policies, and if they are an incumbent, whether or not they have stuck by their promises, and then pick the one that best represents your views. And no matter what always vote NO on ALL judges!”
There have been numerous town discussions in Iowa
about the retention vote.
I live here and I see the coverage. Talk radio covers only
the campaign to vote them out. They never debate or try to discuss. Its like a marathon campaign editorial. Sad.
i’m wondering now if badturtle may be a brother of mine. My dad said basically the same thing, no on all judges(they need a little heat on them)though he did also say that he would vote for elected office candidates he knew and liked. If he didn’nt know either, he’d determine which one was a lawyer and vote for the other guy. good policy I believe to this day.
Yea, well, having been born in Newton I think I can say my Iowa relatives are into this one. They want to amend the Iowa Constitution to take this issue out of the hands of the Supremes. That is probably the best solution, except that I recall the California supremes ruled that the people couldn’t amend their constitution if the amendment itself was ipso facto “unconstitutional”. Now, is that a judicial oxymoron or what!?
Not at all. That is what judges are suposed to do. Their job is to ignore popular whim or polling or emotional movements.
They voted well last year. Vote YES to RETAIN the JUDGES. Its intelligent.
I’ve already voted and it’s not in the judges favor……A very concerned American
already got my absentee ballot—i’m out of town
straight republican and no on the judges, boot them all out!
The description of the retention process in this article is inaccurate. The state bar does not forward names of candidates to the governor. The nominating commission is comprised of an equal number of laypeople appointed by the governor and lawyers elected to the commission by fellow lawyers.
As an Iowan with firsthand knowledge of the high caliber and integrity of our justices and judges, I voted yes for retention.