RSS

Retention election

Poll Spells Trouble for Iowa Judge

Patrick CaldwellSep 04, 2012
(Flickr/Serdar Kaya)

It looks like another Iowa Supreme Court justice may lose his job this year. Conservatives are once again railing against one of the judges who legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa. Bob Vander Plaats, a prominent social conservative on the local scene who led an anti-retention campaign against three of the state's supreme court justices in 2010, announced last month that he was spearheading an effort to make sure David Wiggins doesn't succeed at the polls this November.

In Iowa, a Big To-Do over "I Do"

Can progressives stop conservatives from bringing down judges who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage?

Patrick CaldwellAug 16, 2012
(Flickr/Serdar Kaya)

Iowa Republicans aren't ready to cast aside their anger over the state Supreme Court’s 2009 decision legalizing same-sex marriage. After successfully unseating three of the justices who joined the unanimous decision in 2010, they’re going after Justice David Wiggins, who is up for a retention vote this year. The new conservative campaign won't change Iowa's same-sex marriage law, but it further politicizes the state’s once-independent judiciary and may boost turnout for Mitt Romney in a key swing state.

Celebrating the Defeated

Patrick CaldwellMar 15, 2012
(Flickr/FadderUri)

Three former Iowa Supreme Court justices might not have received much love from their constituents, but they're about to be granted a national accolade. Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Associate Justices David Baker and Michael Streit were voted off the bench in 2010 after conservative activists organized against their retention election, a typically routine procedure that became political overnight. Conservatives—led by failed gubernatorial candidate and evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats—were outraged when the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2009.

Stanching the Cash Flow

A flood of special-interest money has corrupted our courts. How can we fight back?

Erwin Chemerinsky AND James SampleSep 19, 2011

The influence of special-interest money in the corruption of state courts has been well documented. In 39 states, at least some judges are elected, and the costs of these elections are escalating dramatically. The money for such campaigns comes primarily from lawyers and litigants with matters before the courts. At the very least, this system undermines the public's perception of the integrity of courts and their rulings. More than seven in ten Americans surveyed said they believe campaign cash influences judicial decisions. Nearly half of state-court judges agreed. The pervasive perception and increasing reality of monetary influence in judicial decision-making weakens a cornerstone of American democracy.