Litigation

Iowa Ouster Vote Still Stirs National Debate

By Peter Hardin

A screening commission has recommended nine finalists to fill three vacancies on the Iowa Supreme Court that were created when voters erupted over a unanimous court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.

A national newspaper, meanwhile, seized on the Iowa news to spotlight a  “growing national trend of special-interest groups targeting judges with whom they disagree” and divided opinion among judicial analysts about the trend.

The USA Today article was headlined, “Influence of special interests felt in state courts.” It reported that some analysts see high-court judicial independence threatened by the “increasing influx” of millions of dollars in special interest money:

“‘Within our system, judges are not supposed to represent specific constituencies,’ said Adam Skaggs, counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. ‘They are supposed to answer to the law and to the Constitution. They are not supposed to take into consideration any political concerns.’”

The article quoted a different view from James Bopp, an Indiana-based lawyer. When a partisan governor appoints a judge, it’s not much different from special interests influencing elections, he said.

Bopp said, “Even in the most insulated system, the governor appoints the chief justice.” He added,  “Everyone is accountable to someone.”

In Iowa, the commission recommended five judges, three lawyers and a law professor for the state Supreme Court, according to a Des Moines Register article. The panel had interviewed 60 candidates before deciding on finalists to recommend to the governor. While the panel engaged in a more public interviewing process than before, the governor is expected to interview the finalists in private.

On Election Day, Iowans voted to dump the three justices who appeared on a retention ballot. The ouster vote followed a aggressive push by social conservative groups, some of them based outside the state; the ouster drive cost more than $700,000, USA Today quoted the Justice at Stake Campaign as reporting.

Sally Pederson of Justice Not Politics, a group that supports Iowa’s merit-based system for choosing judges, said the openness of the screening process was helpful. “I think that helps give the public more confidence in the process,” she said. “I don’t have any reservations about the process bringing forth the best candidates.”

The Brennan Center is a partner of Justice at Stake. You can learn more about the Iowa controversy from Gavel Grab.

Full post as published by The Gavel on January 28, 2011 (boomark / email).