PJM Exclusive: Behind the Scenes of Iowa’s Victory Over Judicial Activism
Since Tuesday, the entire country has been buzzing with the GOP’s victories over the Democrats at every level. The size, scope, and lasting impact of those victories will be felt for a very long time to come.
But what may turn out to be Tuesday’s most important election happened in Iowa. The Hawkeye State’s voters sent a very loud message that has shaken the state’s legal community to its core, put citizens back in the driver’s seat of state law and policy, and shown three justices on the state Supreme Court the door. Iowa has put activist judges on notice: legislate from the bench, and we will fire you.
So what happened? On Nov 2, three justices on Iowa’s Supreme Court were on the ballot in what’s called a “retention election.” As I wrote for PJM a few weeks before the election, Iowa’s judges are appointed via a convoluted system in which the state bar wields a great deal of power, and the people hold very little. Every few years on a rotating basis, a subset of the Supreme Court’s seven justices go on the ballot for a yes or no vote to retain them in office, and since the system was put in place nearly 40 years ago, no justice on the state’s Supreme Court had ever been voted out. This has made appointments to Iowa’s Supreme Court de facto lifetime appointments.
But in April 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court discovered a right to same-sex marriage. That right wasn’t written into the state constitution, or the federal constitution, or in any statutes anywhere. And the court went a step beyond that, ruling 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 people and their representatives had recently weighed in on the issue: Iowa had passed a Defense of Marriage Act in 1998, defining marriage along its traditional meaning. The unanimous Supreme Court ruling trashed all of that history, and set up Tuesday’s verdict from the people.
But no justice had ever been voted out before. They routinely coasted to victory — and thus retained their jobs – with more than 75% of the vote. Few Iowa voters ever paid much attention to the judicial retention elections. So it would take a great deal of work to first educate voters about what a retention election is, what “yes” and “no” votes actually mean, and why voting to toss the justices who were on the ballot was not only possible, but vital to restoring the voters’ rights.
So with all of this in mind, I spoke with Wayne Hamilton of Murphy Turner & Associates. Murphy Turner is the Austin-based consultancy that did most of the heavy lifting in the weeks leading up to the Iowa vote, and Hamilton was both the architect of the statewide strategy and the man on the scene. He spent most of the 90 days leading up to Nov 2 on the ground in Iowa, coordinating message, strategy, and tactics between a very wide array of groups and activists both within and outside Iowa. Hamilton’s efforts shocked the Iowa legal establishment, which had become accustomed to talking down to Iowans, ignoring their wishes, and winning massively anyway.
“We woke up on Nov 3 with the rest of the country, seeing a big sea change in Washington,” Hamilton said when I reached him by phone. “Well in Iowa, we saw a big sea change when for the first time in the history of the state , three Supreme Court justices were voted off the Supreme Court because of their overt judicial activism. … They’re still stunned, trying to figure out what just happened to them, and I’m sure they’re looking in the mirror going, ‘Was I just hit by a truck?’”
That “truck” was the voters of Iowa, and a network of groups and folks who got together under the banner of Iowa for Freedom to campaign for firing the three justices of the seven who were on the Nov 2 ballot. All three justices who were on the ballot lost by wide margins of 10 to 11 percentage points.
Hamilton’s company, Murphy Turner, does consulting work for the American Family Association, which is how he became involved in the judicial retention election. Working with David Lane and Don Wilemon of the AFA, Hamilton connected with Republican Bob Vander Plaats, who had narrowly lost the Iowa GOP gubernatorial primary, and Jeff Mullen, pastor of the Point of Grace Church in Waukee. They in turn worked with other groups around Iowa to build a grassroots network that spanned the state and ran what amounted to a full political campaign, only one that backed no single candidate. Its purpose was to fire three judges at one time, for the first time in Iowa history.
Hooray for Iowans! Just one more step in taking our country back from leftist, moral-relativist radicals.
That’s why Roe is a great litmus test. Judges who vote no to Roe neither crusade against traditional marriages nor let your homes be taken by cities to be given to drug makers.
Good for the people of Iowa, now we need the rest of the people in the US to tell these Supreme Court Judges to make all their decisions based on the US and Stat Constitutions, not to use their own judgement and decide what they think is fair and right!
It will be interesting to see if the Iowa state government takes the lesson,
on decides to change the law to prevent further meddling by the people.
It will be _very_ interesting if someone maps out a strategy for extending
this precedent to the Federal government and Supreme Court. :>
Democracy at work. This is how it should be. Wish other states and their voters had the smarts to do the same. The concept of a “living Constitution” is deeply flawed, and amounts to an end run around one of the most amazing documents ever created. Power to the people. Lets keep at the effort to preserve our Constitution and take our country back.
Considering the cesspool of stock from which judges are chosen and the character forming influence of injustice observed while their bubbles rise through the quagmire of established procedure, eternal vigilance and continued civil activism must prevail
Considering the cesspool of stock from which judges are chosen and the character forming influence of injustice observed while their bubbles rise through the quagmire of established procedure, eternal vigilance and continued civil activism must prevail. Otherwise the curtain may rise on act II.
Cessation of funding for all such parasites by any means has to become eminent considering their lobbying for $1.2 billion stimulus for support of their professional sewer system. Asking for any such gift clearly indicates the metastasis of elitism cancer in the body politic.
This is a sterling example of what conservatives–that is, ACTUAL AMERICANS–can accomplish when voter fraud does not play the key role.
Excellent!!!
Colorado had a similar movement, but it wasn’t nearly as successful – they only got to 60/40. I suspect the animating force (and money) of pro-traditional-marriage groups in Iowa probably made the difference.
Iowans have just called down the wrath of one Tim Gill. Should be an interesting couple of cycles between the Two Rivers.
Welcome to the tyranny of the majority. When the civil rights of citizens can be put to a vote, we all suffer.
This is precisely why judges on the Supreme Court are accorded lifetime appointments.
Peace.
DS
It’s up to a vote either way. One is a vote of judges, the other is a vote of the people. You seem to have a problem with the latter but not the former.
Beyond what B.Preston noted, you seem to overlook that these judges “found” rights that never existed or were otherwise sanctioned by the true sovereign, that is, the people of Iowa. You complain of the tyranny of the majority without so much as acknowledging the tyranny of an elitist minority that insists on usurping the rights of people to govern themselves in a constitutional republic. At least have the decency to run for elective office, make your case for or against a position, and then vote with the knowledge that you will be held accountable to the electorate. Otherwise, keep your opinions to yourself and do not presume to impose them by judicial fiat; we are a nation ruled by law, not men!
When the civil rights of citizens can be put to a vote, we all suffer.
Gay marriage isn’t a civil right, it’s a demand for an entitlement by a spoiled-brat constituency – which is already quite free to cross gonads with anyone it pleases.
And it’s far better that the definition of marriage be decided by citizens at large than by a tiny minority of judges emplaced by the tiny minority of citizens who populate the bar association. Aristocracy sucks, no matter how ‘elite’.
When the civil rights of citizens can be put to a vote, we all suffer.
It’s the courts that have traditionally been the biggest abuser of civil rights in this country whether its declaring blacks to be less than human as they did in Dred Scott, or finding equality under the law didn’t apply to blacks in Plessy v. Ferguson despite the rather specific wording of the Constitution, or finding that retarded people could be subject to cruel and unusual punishment in Buck v Bell, or declaring that babies in the womb could be killed for convenience.
We need to do this on a national level! For all judges that are “re-elected” in the states, they need to be put on notice that we desire a Gov’t based solely on our Constitution, not on bleeding heart judicial activists. Maybe if we did something nationwide the 9 circus in California would figure it out.
David S,
If the ‘tyranny’ of the majority causes them to live in peaceful accord, what tyranny have they committed?
Then again who has not already seen and lived through the tyranny of the tiny?
This is when 90 to 95 percent of the people are forced, fully against their will to ‘submit’ to a few tyrants. There is no justice to be found in that nonsense. It has fully demonstrated itself to be an ignorant and backward approach when dealing with humanity.
There is not a shred of doubt, that the people of Iowa have their heads screwed on rightly.
Very important. We Tea Party folks need to take note, and follow through everywhere.
Here in CA, we obviously have the same problem. It is difficult for citizens to find information about the individual judges, but we too vote on retaining them. I voted against 4 here.
In a democracy, nobody should have a lifetime appointment without review.
Jodetoad, I voted “No” on all of the judges on my ballot, too.
First, as an Iowan, this is a tremendously proud moment.
Second, it isn’t “tyranny of the majority”. Marriage is what you wish to define. it’s not even addressed in either state or US constitution. This was a clear@violation of the separation of powers – which IS in the constitution.
What’s obvious, is for years now, liberals have been packing courts (at all levels). Obstructing appointments during Republican leadership, and fast tracking appointments under Democratic leadership.
Now, when the legislation doesn’t go the liberal’s way, they find a sympathetic court to hear the case. A great deal of the time they get the legislation annulled because of “constitutional rights” violations. That’s why they’re so eager to make the constitution (any constitution) a plastic document. Almost law can be argued to violate someone’s rights.
Agree. I’m inclined to a 10-year appointment regime. That provides for a measure of continuity and institutional history, minimizes partisan interference as regimes rarely last that long, avoids creation of a permanent leadership based on seniority, and handily deals with those who have “stayed around too long”.
didnt bill clinton fire and replace most of the federal judges at the time of his election? dont they serve at the pleasure of the executive. not talking about the supreme court.
Bojo,
Clinton didn’t fire any judges. He fired every U.S. Attorney (admittedly which he had the right to do, as they are political appointees) and replaced them with hard core Democrat political operatives, whose main purpose was to give Clinton and the Democrats free reign to commit felonies – like Clinton’s campaign cash from the Chinese communists.
Yeah he did and not a peep from the press. Bush replaced a dozen, out of hundreds, and the dems declared he broke the law.
That is wonderful. I am very happy for the people of Iowa, and I can empathize with them.
I close friend of mine had an extremely unpleasant series of experiences with an immoral, liberal, activist judge (and snotty smartass), who rendered his extremely inappropriate decisions based on case law and his own whims, instead of on our Bill Of Rights and our Constitution, only to have had his extremely inappropriate decisions overturned by an appellate court, which chastised that jerk for his outrageously nervy, irresponsible and inappropriate behavior, too …., unfortunately too late, however, to prevent another tragedy that was a direct consequence of that slimy judge’s monstrous misconduct. A lot of people hate all attorneys and all judges, because of judges like that scumbag.
True Brian, but where are the inside whistle blowers? If they can’t call it what it is then they condone it and become fellow travelers with the morally corrupt Only when they can clean their own house do they deserve to be considered fit to enforce others cleaning.
Iowans, only one word to describe your actions: “BEAUTIFUL”. Tip of the cap, clap of the hands, loud whistle.
Now what we need is to round up another couple of hundred of these judicial activists in the next election all over this country and send them packing, frogmarched to the street, robes ripped over their heads, swift kick in the butt to the curb.
That’s for their profound arrogance…
A number of years ago (1986), Californians similarly revolted against their state’s Supreme Court judges and also threw out three judges who were hard-over leftists and refused to enforce death penalty laws. This included Rose Bird, the Chief Justice, who had become famous for her public lies about supporting the death penalty, while telling the truth about her policies at parties, which got exposed.
I think this would be unlikely to happen in today’s California, though.
If you want to get married in a church that disallows gay marriage, more power to you. The problem I have, is that in this case people are forcing their sense of morality on others that don’s share their opinion. The state is supposed to protect the rights of all it’s citizens, and that includes gay people. There is no legitimate governmental reason to deny marriage rights to gays, it’s strictly a moral issue. In this case, a moral majority has imposed their will on other citizens, and I think that’s just plain wrong. This case also clearly demonstrates why judges shouldn’t be elected. I’m a lifelong republican. none of my friends and no one in my family is gay, but I do believe who anyone chooses as a partner is none of my business. Give it thirty years, and you will find that Republicans are on the wrong side of history for this issue. The state is supposed to be secular, not religious.
DaveC In this case, a moral majority has imposed their will on other citizens, and I think that’s just plain wrong.
A majority imposing their will on other citizens is what happens at every election we have. According to your logic, then, choosing our laws and elected officials should be done by small special interest blocs, which, in my view, is true tyranny. A small group of judges imposing their lawmaking will on the majority of citizens was where the wrong occurred here.
Congratulations, Iowa. Judges should be accountable to the people, just like other elected officials, and leave the legislating to the proper (other) branch of government. Iowans have correctly shown that judicial activism, and elections, have consequences.
Are not all laws about morals? Stealing and killing are immoral, because they are harmful to society individually and at large. We protect our children from sexual material until they are ready for it. Prostitution is illegal, but many would have it not be. Fact is , though, there is real societal harm in it. One can argue all these things, but the point is, is there harm to society?
In the case of gay marriage, it is not about the right to marry, anyway. It is about seeking government’s imprimatur. They seek the normalization of this truly grotesque behavior.
Marriage is a positive thing in society. It is how we provide for a future. It provides stability. Lack of it produces criminality. It also provides legal rights for married folks to enable the procreation all the better. It has a specific purpose. Gays are not entitled to such rights, because they do not procreate.
Gays can go to some hedonist church and get married. They can wear rings and call themselves married if they want. Just do not ask us to give our good-housekeeping stamp of approval on such vileness. As a father, I do not want my children being taught that such a lifestyle is mainstream and acceptable. Children who grow up in a gay household are roughly 10 times more likely to become gay. (20% versus estimated 2% of the populace at large)
Finally, this is a temporary abnormality in our culture. It is an indoctrination by the people who would subvert our country. It is being rejected, as this election showed. This is a permanent shift back towards a more conservative, moral society. Without a generally moral society, we cannot get a generally moral government. The subversives KNOW this. They absolutely DO know this.
History will show us on the right side of this.
Excellent, MMalone! Contrary to popular belief, morality is the ONLY thing that can be legislated. As you point out, laws on morality are made every day by hundreds of legislators across our fruited plain: the prohibiting of killing, theft, B&E, assault, battery, prostitution, voyeurism, pornography, indecency et al is done constantly.
However, I do have one small disagreement with you re: Gays are not entitled to such rights, because they do not procreate. The fact is, gays are not being denied any “rights” that others are not also being denied. Gays and straights can both marry whoever they like as long it’s someone of the opposite sex; no difference in the rights of both groups there. Both gays and straights are also banned from marrying someone of the same sex; no difference there either. Gays don’t want “equal” rights -they have that now- they want “special” rights, i.e. that marriage be re-defined especially for them. In your words, They seek the normalization of this truly grotesque behavior. That’s seeking special rights, not equal rights. In any event, good for you Iowa for saying no to judicial activism!
While I agree with dumping these three judges and with the entire fight against the judical activism as practiced by the likes of William Brennan, Rose Bird and Stephen Reinhardt, I have to disagree with the statement that laws are about morals.
Ever since Hammurabi’s Code, legal codes have (generally, Shar’ia being an obvious exception) been about keeping people from hurting one another. Whether it has been Hammurabi’s Code, the Ten Commandments (with a few Judeo-Christian exceptions), Athenian democracy, Republican Rome, Justinian’s Code, William the Conqueror, the Magna Carta or our own Constitution, the Western law has been about protecting people in their life, liberty and property so that civilization may flourish.
That’s not morality, that’s practicality. It gets its morality veneer from the Ten Commandments, where most such rules get a divine blessing. But the Ten Commandments do not go so far as many today would have them go. Just because something is (considered) immoral doesn’t mean it should be illegal, or vice versa. Having the government police private morality is the road to shar’ia law.
To take my long-winded explanation full circle, with the law being about keeping people from hurting one another, the question becomes, whom is gay marriage hurting, and how? Lack of gay marriage is hurting gays, denying them rights and legal protections everyone else has. But gay marriage hurts … whom? How? No one has been able to answer this question except in general, ephemral terms such as “cheapens marriage,” which has no obvious meaning.
(And don’t give me the argument that gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else; that’s like saying men have the right to have an abortion.)
Until opponents of gay marriage can cite how gay marriage actually, tangibly and quantitatively hurts others — which the law is supposed to prevent — count me and many, many others as gay marriage supporters.
(And don’t give me the argument that gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else; that’s like saying men have the right to have an abortion.)
A faulty analysis, b/c men are physically incapable of having an abortion, but men and/or women are both physically capable of marrying one another.
Ever since Hammurabi’s Code, legal codes have (generally, Shar’ia being an obvious exception) been about keeping people from hurting one another.
If you mean physically hurting one another, then why is video voyeurism a crime in most states now? No physical harm is caused there. The answer is very simple: people can be harmed not only by what is done to them or taken from them physically, but also by what is seen. Likewise, kids can be harmed by what they see. Can it be made tangible or quantified? No, but harm can still occur.
Hardly a faulty analysis. Gays biologically have no motivation to marry the opposite sex because they are not attracted to the opposite sex, therefore they are incapable of such marriages. Note that I am proceeding from the basis that homosexuality is biological in origin, not a choice. They can no more change their sexual orientation than someone can change their race, Michael Jackson excepted.
And I said “hurting” one another. Never said “physical.” It could be physical. It could be financial. It could be psychological. Stealing is not a physical injury, nor is a death threat. That said, I fail to see where homosexuality in general, let alone homosexual marriage, hurts anyone, physically or otherwise.
If you want to get married in a church that disallows gay marriage, more power to you.
And if you want to get married in a church that allows gay marriage, more power to you it’s just that you are not going to have access to divorce courts when the break-up comes.
And what would you conclude about their fallacy being forced into education at all levels where they plant their only seed into minds of students in their formative years for perpetuation of their kind. MBLA offers no other method.
I understand Dave’s commitment to equal rights but the Constitution does not address all claimed inequality. Only elitists believe the Constitution was intended to overrule thousands of years of human history that defined marriage as a state-sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman. If the courts want to enforce equal rights for same-sex couples, I have no quarrel, but insisting that the state call the relationship a “marriage” i son step too far. Like other ideas, the idea of gay marriage should be adopted democratically
Is there a similar organisation in NJ (Essex County) such as the American Family Association? If so, could you please let me know how to contact it? NJ is such a hotbed of liberalism and possibly activist judges as well that “we the people” need to redress if there is going to be real justice! Thank you.
Juana Fromageot
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrreat! This was one election I loved. My friends in Iowa are ecstatic!
Bravo for Iowa! I hope the nation is watching because this needs to be done in every state. It’s time to clean house, open the windows and let the air of freedom blow through.
These social conservative wingnut bigots! They are ruining America and the Republican Party!
/sarc
Gays biologically have no motivation to marry the opposite sex because they are not attracted to the opposite sex, therefore they are incapable of such marriages.
Well, then, I’m curious to know how you will explain away (I’m sure you’ll come up with something) the fact some gays marry, lead a normal-appearing, superficial heterosexual life, sometimes even having kids, but while simultaneously being homosexual, even practicing it, thus leading a double life.
Stealing is not a physical injury, nor is a death threat.
Au contraire, my fine misguided friend. Stealing someone’s property IS a physical injury, not necessarily to one’s person, but to one’s bank account, asset holdings, then it may take physical labor or additional money to make the victim whole again. A death threat can result in physical injury, i.e. fear, depression, anxiety, apprehension, mental anguish, stress & physical deterioration therefrom.
It will be interesting to see if the Iowa state government takes the lesson,
It will be _very_ interesting if someone maps out a strategy for extending
THANKS
Fantastic blog! I really love how it’s easy on my eyes and also the information are well written. I am wondering how I could be notified whenever a new post has been made.