According to this article, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101025/ap_on_el_ge/us_iowa_gay_marriage, there is a movement afoot to remove some of the Iowa Supreme Court judges for their (unanimous) decision that allowed for same-sex marriage in the state. But I haven’t heard too much else about this situation. Does anyone know how likely this attempt is to succeed? Or if similar movements are taking place in other states? Thanks.
I have done some research, and the latest poll from October 29 shows:
37% will vote to remove all three judges up for election,
34% will keep all of them, and
10% will keep some of them.
That leaves 19% undecided. It thus seems fairly likely that at least one judge will be removed for supporting same-sex marriage in Iowa. One wonders if this will have a chilling effect on other elected judges who have to decide the same thing.
ETA:
Cite?
ETA 2:
Here you go: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101031/NEWS09/10310356/New-Iowa-Poll-Voters-tilt-toward-axing-justices
Live in Iowa. Scared by this prospect. Pissed off at the anti-SSM doofuses who came up with this campaign.
In short: Iowa’s system of selecting judges is seen nationwide as a fair, mostly nonpartisan and nonpolitical affair. When a position for a justice opens, a board of various lawyerly types draws up a list of several candidates, from which the governor makes the selection. Since the 1960s, I believe, judges go on the ballot for a “retention” vote (I guess to mollify the anti-“judge for life” crowd that you hear whining sometimes). This is designed as a way to remove justices for corrupt or outrageous behavior … not because of disagreement with a legal decision.
Well, here comes same-sex marriage! The Iowa legislature, like many other states, passed a “Defense of Marriage” law (it’s still hard to write that without my eyes falling out from rolling so much) that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Eventually, this law made it to the state Supreme Court, which (in an elegantly written and unanimous decision) ruled that it was unconstitutional, falling afoul of the state constitution’s requirement for equal treatment under the law.
As you might imagine, the anti-SSM crowd was in an uproar. “Activist judges making law!” they screamed. “They won’t even let you vote on it!” they hollered. “Gay people in public mocking me!” they yelled (okay, mostly in their heads, that last one). What to do? Well, let’s rile up the old folks and the farmers who hate “elitists” and “queers” and get them to vote against retention of the three justices on the ballot this year.
Bob VanderPlaats, a former gubernatorial candidate (and current goober), is leader of the charge. He’s getting a LOT of money from out of state, as you might imagine, and the airwaves have been clogged with “Vote No” ads. They also ponied up a ton of money for signs, which I have seen all over the eastern part of the state.
The campaign boils down to the conservatives holding their breath and throwing a massive tantrum … “these judges were mean to me! make them go away!” Unfortunately … it might work. The retention vote is on the back of the ballot, so it takes an extra step to get to it. All the money is on the “No” side … there has been no such thing as judicial campaigns in Iowa, and the current justices are not about to start that trend. A pro-retention group has been set up, but it’s woefully behind financially and hasn’t made a lot of publicity.
We have to hope that common sense prevails here, but there’s just something visceral about the anti-gay crowd that could really whip up voter turnout for their side. I fear all three of the Supreme Court justices will be voted out … and this does not bode well for future retention votes, as the VanderPlaats crowd will see their tactics work and they will be back for more. The one small bright spot is, at least for now, the judicial selection system will remain a nonpolitical one where the most qualified candidates will be offered for the governor to choose from. But this could cause a slippery slope that might change that for the worse.
Looks like all three Supreme Court justices will be unseated, with about 55% No votes. It’s a very sad commentary on Iowa in general, which has historically been a forward-thinking state in the civil rights arena.
The buzzwords of “activist judges” and “denying your right to vote” – along with tons of out-of-state money - appear to have taken the day. Apparently the idea of an independent judiciary that protects the rights of the minority isn’t that important, at least when it comes to SSM. It’s majority rule, dammit! Let the people speak! Give us what we want, or we take your robes away!
I didn’t think the judicial branch was supposed to be treated this way. Sad. The one bright spot is that the system to select replacement justices stays the same. For now. But the chilling affect on judges statewide has to be significant.
I voted no, yes, yes. I feel that Ternus had some issues with her personal life that were not in line with being the Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme court. The Chief Justice cannot host underage drinking parties at her house. I expect her to be better than that.
On a positive note, it appears that not a single judge other than the three SC’s was removed. This shows to me that those voting no, no, no may not have been the neanderthals that they have been portrayed as. They didn’t vote out the entire judiciary.
50265 Resident.
Wait, what? You think because the voters didn’t throw ALL the judges out that they’re not “the neanderthals that they have been portrayed as”? What OTHER reasons are there for voting against the Supremes, except that you don’t think gays should be able to marry?
I’m using the general “you” there, JXJohns, not you specifically. I see you had a reason for voting against Ternus, and I respect that. That’s what the retention vote is supposed to be for, by the way, a method to remove judges who are or may be not qualified for whatever reason. I do fear a slippery slope in the judiciary if judges have to consider the political ramifications of their decisions, rather than simply ruling on the legal grounds of any case brought before them.
I’ve been trying to explain this at work, to people who keep arguing over the definition of marriage, and activist judges making law, and evil black-robed brigands coming to STEAL YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE and all that ridiculous claptrap that we kept hearing in all the Vote No! ads. Seems to me the simplest description of the ruling was: Anything a heterosexual Iowan has the right to do, a homosexual Iowan also has the right to do. It’s not about marrying a goat, or your sister, or five women at once, or any of those stupid responses. A heterosexual can’t do any of those things either, so a homosexual doesn’t have that right. But while a heterosexual has the right to marry a person (one, not plural; person, not animal) whom they love, there are many who don’t think a homosexual should have that right. Even though the Supreme Court found that right quite obvious in the state constitution.
Now, the question of whether a heterosexual has the right to only marry a person of the opposite gender, which a homosexual obviously has the right to do today, is a somewhat open question. But that is yet to be determined, and I for one would hate to come down on the side of discrimination in this matter.
My marriage has nothing to fear from SSM. Nor does anyone else’s.
Not picking on you, JXJohns. I appreciate your thoughts … I always respect those who have a solid reason for their points of view, and who can back them up with data and convincing arguments.
I believe that it shows that they actually made a choice to vote out those who they had issues with, whether right or wrong, informed or otherwise, while affirming the fact that the rest of the judiciary was doing fine. Sort of the opposite of “throw ALL of the bums out” message that I heard too often during campaign season. I honestly was concerned that the same majority would vote out every single judge on the ballot.
Not sure what your ballot looked like, but I bet I had at least 30 on there. Most folks don’t vote one way or the other on those so all it would have taken was a determined few to really upset the judiciary. Since that didn’t happen, I guess I still have some (misguided?) faith in my fellow Iowegians.
So you think it’s appropriate that they voted against judges based on a single issue? That’s more short sighted than the “throw out the bums” vote.
This potentially much more than a single issue. In other words, judges are not legislators; presumably they didn’t rule the way they did because they thought same-sex marriage was wise social policy. Right?
They must have ruled the way they did because they felt the state constitution should be interpreted using a particular method. If the voters felt that this method was not the correct one, that’s not a “single issue” – that goes to the heart of what a judge’s role should be.
Can you explain that again, slower?
Judges didn’t rule that way because of a belief for or against SSM. With you there (at least, one hopes they didn’t).
I don’t see how it follows that *voters *decided went through that thought process and felt that the judges were using some incorrect strategy for interpreting the constitution. I think, without cite, that most voters thought, “gays getting married is wrong. That judge will pay,” or something much less sophisticated than what you’re positing.
Did I say that? I certainly don’t see it in my posts. I did mention that I am glad that we don’t have to replace the entire judiciary, and I’m glad that those who felt strongly about voting the Supremes out left their disdain with them. I also mentioned how and why I voted the way that I did including retaining two of the three judges.
Pretty sure I didn’t use the word appropriate.
I’m contending they thought, “Judges shouldn’t decide stuff like that.”
Which is arguably true.
Then who does? When the majority votes that niggers aren’t people and don’t have rights, who protects them? The courts are specifically there to protect against the tyranny of the fleeting majority.
Rick, I respect the hell out of you, but you’ve taken a weird right-wing twist over the last year that has puzzled the hell out of me. IIRC, you’re married to a person that most of these tea party fucks wouldn’t currently let in the country if they had an open field. We have to have some body that isn’t dependent on the vote-of-the-day weirdos to keep their job or we may as well stop pretending to be anything other than a democracy.
I think you mischaracterize “most of the tea party fucks.” So far as I can tell, most simply favor compliance with immigration law - something my wife and I had no problem doing. I’m not aware of any major tea party candidate or group arguing a complete border shutdown.
Now, you talk about the tyranny of the fleeting majority, as if to suggest that same-sex marriage had a long and noble tradition in this country, and would still be comfortably in place, but for the fleeting desires of a hot-headed mob.
But you know that’s not true. It’s the crowd seeking same-sex marriage rights that is working a large change in society.
It’s fascinating to me that you accuse me of some recent change, and cast your whole argument as something clearly required under the law, but for the recent wash of anti-gay fervor. you know that’s not true. You’re the one cloaking your argument in deceit.
There are good reasons to argue that a given states’ equal protection clause covers same-sex marriage, but you cannot plausibly claim it’s inevitable and the only reasonable option. It’s perfectly reasonable for a person to want such a change to come from the legislature, not the courts.
But that’s not how it works and you damn well know it. Suppose the Florida Legislature passes a law that left-handed people can’t vote. After all, handedness is not a protected class. Should left-handed people just give up their vote until they can convince the Legislature that they screwed up? Or should they go to a court?
I’m so glad I’m not talking myself anymore in this thread. 
That said, I’m not sure that removing judges for the content of their decisions is particularly wise unless these decisions demonstrate incoherence. I find this sort of thing worrisome, because the entire point of the judiciary is the taking the big-picture view, and such a perspective seems easier to maintain if one’s job isn’t on the line. Alas.
I wonder if it’s possible to renominate the same three people to the court.
I’m embarrassed to say I’m from Iowa after I read the judge retention results today. I have a suspicion the people who voted NO on the judges retention, were voting against same sex marriage instead of voting on the merits of the judges.
From the role of a judiciary:
“Some people mistakenly believe that judges make decisions based upon a personal sense of what they believe to be fair under the circumstances of a case. While a judge must always be fair in the sense of remaining impartial at all times, judicial decisions must be based upon the application of the law to the facts admitted into evidence. Sometimes the application of the law leads to outcomes that some people would characterize as “unfair.” Nevertheless, judges are bound to follow the law.”
Amazing! Sure, we all knew that Bricker’s consummate skills in “Full Contact Origami” easily enabled him to carefully fold the Iowa Constitution in such a clever way as to render the role of the state’s third branch of government into pointless insignificance, but who could have imagined he could transcend materiality completely and succeed in twisting reality itself so as to render ignorance, bigotry and hate as calm, sober reasonableness?
Look upon the following staggeringly disingenuous apologetics for bigotry, ye Doper, and despair!
Amazing!
Perhaps the most glaring flaw in Bricker’s astonishingly naive apologetics lies with his wildly counterfactual premise that the voters who unseated all three Iowa Supreme Court justices seriously contemplated the proper role of the courts in state government!
Bricker, oh preternaturally naive Bricker! Do you live under a cup? Have you ventured outside of your hermit’s cave at any time in the last 10 years? Have you never heard of Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? Glenn Beck? Never taken a peak at conservative web sites like FreeRepublic.com and Stormfront.org?
I submit that to write, as Bricker does above, that most in the Tea Parties “simply favor compliance with immigration law” is much too much like writing “Mussolini simply wanted the trains to run on time”. Simplicity is often a terrible enemy of truth.
But this isn’t about Bricker as an individual. My objection is to the extreme degree of political denialism all around us, in all kinds of media, which pretends that the average American voter – even those on the Right – made some kind of informed, rational decision before casting their ballot. Bricker’s words here are merely just another example of such blithely delusional thinking.
Only those who willfully blind themselves to the reality of what truly occurs at the intersection of human nature and politics could possibly imagine that the Iowans who voted out their Supreme Court had engaged in some kind of informed, rational decision-making process. The drastic denialism inherent in such a view unnerves and worries me considerably. It puts me in mind of Chamberlain’s “Peace for our time” speech. Nothing good can come from mistaking fear and hate and bigotry for reasoned analysis. Nothing.
In truth, we in the U.S. today are a nation dominated by a majority of highly gullible dupes who will believe just about anything as long as it’s hateful, bigoted, or false, and, as the 2010 mid-terms demonstrated, those who most fervently believe those lies are the most enthusiastic voters. We ignore this reality at our peril.
As evidence, I cite:
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life
Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free
and: Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter
Woe is us.
I’ve heard this “I’m embarrassed” meme for the last 48 hours and to be honest, it’s getting old. You are embarrassed because people in this state think differently than you? Besides Polk, Johnson, and Linn counties, what exactly did you expect? Embarrassed because people made a decision, perhaps erroneously, that differed with your own? If there was ever a case study tailor made for whether campaigns and campaign ads work, it’s this one.
The NO NO NO tour spent a fortune to get the word out that now was the chance to get back at the man for not allowing people to vote on SSM. The rational side, including those who are embarrassed today, did little to nothing other than wring their hands, post on message boards, and wag fingers at those even thinking about not retaining judges. Has the judiciary been politicized? I’m not sure about that yet. After all, the judge who made the initial decision in support of SSM was retained with no problems.
I looked outside this morning and the sun is still shining, SSM is still legal with no serious threat in sight. How many other states allow SSM, and you are embarrassed of ours?
They cannot be appointed for two years after being unseated, per the Iowa Constitution. FYI