Removal of Iowa Judges Encourages Other Right Wing Activist Groups

The recent removal, via a retention vote, of three Iowa Supreme Court Justices over their part in the 2009 ruling to legalize same sex marriage in the state, has encouraged other social activist groups to take another look at intimidating the judicial system. As a means to roll back the clock on abortion rights, pro-gay civil rights, and other positive social gains that they oppose for moral reasons, activist groups believe bullying judges is the next battleground.

A New Weapon

In the past, removal campaigns against judges have been hard to promote to the average voter, but the victory of anti-gay marriage supporters in Iowa proves that a clever campaign can win.

How It Works

Basically, sitting judges at the state level are periodically up for retention votes that allow voters to decide on their continued fitness for the bench. Groups with axes to grind over rulings that uphold the civil rights of citizens to equality, or to make personal decisions without worrying about the religious views of others, could use the voting process to remove judges who did nothing more than uphold state and federal constitutional law. Groups who run campaigns to remove judges whose rulings set back their causes hope for two things: to punish individual judges and to make it difficult for states to fill judicial positions.

Judges Threatened in Midterm 2010

Four states including Iowa were stages for judge retention battles this past election, but Iowa was the only state where activists succeeded in removing judges.

In Colorado, three Supreme Court Justices were targeted for removal for their rulings on taxation issues.

Kansas anti-abortion groups went after, but failed to remove, four justices for their rulings on abortion clinics.

An Illinois justice was targeted for his decision which overturned the cap on medical malpractice awards. He survived.

Chilling Effect on Recruitment

But what may not survive in this new war on the judicial system is the ability of states to fill vacant seats with the most qualified candidates. Judicial postings are considered non-partisan. The Iowa judges were so dedicated to the premise their positions were not to be considered political, that they refused to even defend themselves from the attacks by the anti-gay marriage group, which disingenuously suggested to Iowa voters that the judges had “made up” the law that resulted in the legalization of same-sex marriage. In fact, the Iowa constitution itself was the grounds by which the justices ruled no one could be denied the right to marry based on sexual orientation.

Judge retention votes are designed to do only one thing — give the people the opportunity to remove unqualified or incompetent justices from the bench. It is not an avenue for retribution, or to change laws or amend the state constitution. Casting a vote against a judge who merely enforces existing law, or code, is a new and scary gray area for a country that once prided itself on its rule of law rather than mob.

What Do You Think?

Are judges fair game in elections when they rule on hot button social issues in a manner which upsets certain religious driven activist groups? Would you vote out a judge who made a legally correct ruling, but offended your moral code? Let’s hear from you.

photo credit: Municipal Court Judges 2001 by Seattle Municipal Archives

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Madeline K.

3:33PM PST on Dec 18, 2010

I think this poll is skewed. If the same question had been asked in favor of people voting judges out who had actually committed a crime against human rights I believe the majority of people who voted No! here would have voted Yes!

I think people should be allowed to vote if the judges do something wrong. The only thing wrong about this is that they've been ousted for doing something good.

send a green star

pam w.

10:17AM PST on Dec 18, 2010

The people of Iowa seem eager to recreate the hateful conditions of 1939 Germany.

Barbara E.

9:57PM PST on Nov 20, 2010

Interesting and a bit confusing. thanx

Doug D.

1:32AM PST on Nov 14, 2010

This is very difficult, and appointed judges may be as, if not more, partisan that elected judges.

Past Member .

6:58PM PST on Nov 12, 2010

I really get sickened by partial news and distorted stories. I lived in Iowa for many, many years and routinely voted to replace judges to just "shake things up." However, I doubt that this author has even met anyone from Iowa. Arrogance and conceit are not traits Iowans admire. They will not take kindly to being misled on this last election. Good luck getting another judge kicked by your special interest group. With all of your bragging, all you have done is ensure that every judge in Iowa is now in for life. Nice going. Next time, before you feel the urge to brag how you pulled a fast one, I suggest that you understand your audience. I also suggest you NOT visit Iowa in the next hundred years or so. As a special favor for you, I will send this to all my friends in Iowa so that they will know all about you, your bragging and the fast one you pulled. Oh my, I don't think the Iowa farmers will really enjoy being the butt of your jokes and tricks! You used them and that is despicable.

Piper W.

5:52PM PST on Nov 11, 2010

The debate of right or wrong aside, how is 'freeing' the Judiciary by taking the vote away from the people and making it a political appointment 'freeing'? Doesn't it then become political payback - business as usual? I'd really like an honest answer and not just right-wing/left-wing slamming, because you should realize both parties are equally guilty of this kind of action...

Lynn U.

6:58PM PST on Nov 9, 2010

As an Iowan I was severely disappointed in the removal of the judges. This opens a whole new realm to how future decisions could be made. I think it was a serious mistake made by emotional voters who did not think of the full consequences of their actions. Two of the judges were appointed by a conservative Republican governor. Outside interests spent enormous amounts of money in our state to make a religious point. But the last time I checked we were still supposed to have a separation of church and state. I'm sure they will be back when the next judges are up for reinstatement. Hopefully by then the voters of Iowa will have learned from this and will retain judges that make decisions within the letter of the law.

Matthew N.

4:24PM PST on Nov 9, 2010

This may be sad news for civil rights, but it's hardly an abuse of the system. If you want to give citizens the right to pick their judges, you can't fault them for the criteria they use. If the real reason for retention votes was to remove judges who were incompetent in law, wouldn't the review be done by people who know something about the law? It seems to me that morals are the only grounds available for the average citizen to make these decisions.

Of course, I think the states should just do away with elected judges altogether, for that very reason. Canada has the right idea.

Ann B.

4:09PM PST on Nov 9, 2010

David J, the Iowa constitution doesn't allow for the state to pick and choose who it grants licenses to and a marriage license is nothing more than the state's recognition that two people are partnered and legally entitled to share in each other's goods and benefits. The state does not confer religious blessing; it facilitates contracts. Hence, the discrimination. The court ruled correctly based on what was written.

Stephen Y.

1:24PM PST on Nov 9, 2010

Judges should be appointed not elected. This is the exact reason.