Litigation

Ouster Effort to ?Intimidate Our Courts? Denounced

By Peter Hardin

An effort in Iowa and several other states to remove high court justices in retention elections, in response to controversial rulings, is drawing heightened national attention.

In Iowa,  social conservatives are leading a drive to oust three justices over a unanimous state Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. Troy Price of the gay rights group One Iowa told the New York Times that the effort sends a chilling message to judges nationwide.

“Our concern is the message it sends to judges around the country that if you have a case like ours come before you, you could very well lose your jobs over it,” Price told the Times for an article headlined, “Voters Moving to Oust Judges Over Decisions.” He added, “This is an effort to intimidate the courts in Iowa and intimidate courts all across the country.”

Brian S. Brown, executive director of National Organization for Marriage, a conservative group, said an ouster vote in Iowa’s fall retention elections would telegraph a message to all judges.

?It sends a powerful message,? Brown said, ?that if justices go outside the bounds of their oaths, if the justices go outside the bounds of the U.S. and state constitutions they?re going to be held accountable.? His group has pumped $230,000 into TV advertising critical of the Iowa justices.

The Times article discusses retention elections in several states that were highlighted earlier by a joint report from the Justice at Stake Campaign and the Brennan Center for Justice. The two nonpartisan groups said states that work to insulate judges from electoral pressures are facing some of the nation?s most contentious, and potentially costly, court elections this fall. Echoing the JAS and Brennan report, the Times article stated:

“Around the country, judicial elections that were designed to be as apolitical as possible are suddenly as contentious as any another race.”

In addition, the Times article refers to data in a recent report on soaring spending in judicial elections during the past decade. It was co-authored by both groups. This year, spending on retention elections could exceed the sum spent on them in the entire past decade, said Adam Skaggs of the Brennan Center, who raised basic concerns.

“These cases suggest that the same type of arms-race spending in other contested elections is now beginning to impact previously quiet judicial elections,?  Skaggs cautioned. ?These retention elections were sort of the last frontier that was free from this highly political, very expensive campaigning in the judiciary.?

A posting in a blog of the Arkansas Times commented on the New York Times article, with this headline: “The down side of electing judges.” In Huffington Post, retired Federal Judge Lee Sarokin wrote:

“The judiciary is not American Idol; and judges should not be treated as contestants. Nor should they be ousted for rendering decisions that some segment of the public opposes. Every decision will have its supporters and detractors. The appellate process, not the election process, is meant to correct errors in judgment.”

To learn more about the retention elections in Iowa, see Gavel Grab.

Full post as published by The Gavel on September 27, 2010 (boomark / email).