Back in April, 2009, I wrote a blog that expressed my pride in a decision by the Iowa Supreme Court that according to the Iowa Constitution, marriage could not discriminate against those of the same sex who wished to marry. It was a landmark decision that drew national attention, both by those who agreed with the decision and those disagreed. At that time I ended the blog saying :"I'm proud to live in Iowa and the leads it has taken in civil rights. Corn, hogs, and soybeans,yes; but also a belief in fairness and common sense. "
I may have spoken too soon; because I was very disappointed in the recent elections and the vote of my fellow Iowans. Iowa has a law that allows for citizens to vote on the retention of its judges. It's a reasonable safe-guard system, that allows for a method for incompetent or corrupt judges to be removed from the bench. In fact, a supreme court judge has never lost a vote for retention, until this November's election.
A highly public campaign was launched against three of the Iowa Supreme Court judges who were up for retention in this mid-term election. There was no evidence or reports of corruption or incompetence on any of the judges; the campaign was aimed particularly at these judges because they had voted for the rights of same sex couples to marry. (it was an unanimous decision by the Iowa Supreme Court, by the way)
Their "crime" was to be labeled an "activist Judge" and for "making laws". Obviously, any 8th grade civics student will tell you that judges don't "make laws", they make judgments on whether laws passed are acceptable under the constitution. It seems that some critics of judges use the label of "activist judge" anytime a court rules in a way they don't agree with their decision.
In the election, all three supreme court judges lost their vote to be retained. Interestingly, USA Today, the New York Times, and the Washington Post have criticized the decision by some Iowans to remove judges for making a ruling consistent with the constitution of the state.
I am disappointed and embarrassed by the vote of my fellow Iowans on this issue. I wonder what message this sends to the judges and their future decisions if they have to consider, not questions of law and constitutionality of the law but questions of public opinion and whether they are may lose their position because of their vote.
