Iowa votes on justice from ’09 gay marriage ruling

from The Associated Press, featured in The San Francisco Chronicle.

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Voters were deciding Tuesday whether to keep Justice David Wiggins on the Iowa Supreme Court or throw him out of office for joining the landmark 2009 decision that legalized gay marriage.

Social conservatives angered by that ruling were hoping to oust Wiggins. In an unprecedented campaign two years ago, they helped defeat three of his colleagues.

Liberal groups and trial lawyers were trying to keep Wiggins on the bench. State Supreme Court justices must face voters the first year after they are appointed and then every eight years. Justices must receive a simple majority vote to stay in office.

The vote on Wiggins’ retention is considered a barometer for the country’s changing views on gay marriage and a flashpoint in the debate over the role of courts in American life.

Wiggins joined six colleagues in unanimously declaring a state law banning gay marriage violated the equal-protection clause of Iowa’s constitution, making Iowa the first Midwestern state to legalize gay marriage. Thousands of gay couples have wed in the state.

The backlash from conservatives, both in Iowa and nationwide, was fierce. Groups such as the National Organization for Marriage spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to campaign against Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit in 2010, and about 55 percent of Iowa voters agreed to remove them from office.

Conservatives ran a similar campaign this year calling for Wiggins’ ouster during his retention vote, and the Iowa Republican Party also joined the effort.

“We won a state championship in 2010. We defeated three judges. We sent them a message on judicial activism and the people holding them accountable,” said Bob Vander Plaats, whose group, the Family Leader, led the anti-justice effort. “Now we’ve got to go play the game all over again.”

Wiggins may benefit from increasing support for gay marriage in Iowa and a more organized pro-retention effort from groups such as the Iowa State Bar Association, which was urging voters to keep politics out of the judicial branch.

Another factor in Wiggins’ retention campaign was that he received a satisfactory — but relatively poor — performance review from attorneys. A Bar Association survey found that 63 percent of lawyers believed he should be retained, far lower than the other three newly appointed justices on the ballot, and gave him middling marks for his temperament and demeanor.

Wiggins was appointed in 2003 by Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack. If he is not retained for another eight-year term, Republican Gov. Terry Branstad will appoint a replacement next year from a slate of finalists chosen by a judicial nominating commission.

Wiggins honored Iowa’s long tradition in which justices do not raise money or actively campaign.

“I want to keep my job, believe me, but I will not jeopardize the integrity of the Iowa Supreme Court in the process,” he wrote in The Des Moines Register.

The three remaining justices who joined the 2009 ruling will face voters in future elections.

Read the article from The Associated Press.

Doing his job

from The Gazette editorial board.

Two years ago, we strongly opposed the campaign to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices who joined a unanimous 2009 decision striking down a ban on same-sex marriages. Now, those seeking to punish the court for doing its sworn duty to uphold the Iowa Constitution have set their sights on Justice David Wiggins, who also joined the marriage ruling and faces a retention vote Tuesday.

Our opposition to this ongoing, misguided and politically motivated drive to target Iowa’s highest court remains strong and unchanged. We urge Iowans to turn over their ballot on Tuesday, find the judicial retention section and fill in the “yes” oval next to Wiggins’ name.

To put it bluntly, groups advocating for the removal of Wiggins, including Iowans for Freedom led by Bob Vander Plaats, have failed to make a compelling argument for ending his judicial career.

They argue that the Supreme Court acted illegally and overstepped its authority when it ruled in Varnum v. Brien. In reality, the court was well within its authority to settle a question of constitutional equity posed by gay and lesbian couples who were denied Iowa marriage licenses. Justices ruled that the state failed to make a compelling legal case for excluding same-sex couples from civil — not religious — marriage rights, denying them equal protection under the law. In finding the law unconstitutional, the court did its job.

UNREAL PICTURE

Wiggins’ opponents have recklessly tried to paint a confusing and mistaken picture of Iowa’s courts as places where activist judges run amok. It bears no resemblance to the reality of our system, highly regarded nationally, where judges settle issues brought to them by Iowans, based on law, evidence and argument.

They point out that Wiggins received just a 63 percent approval rating in a survey of roughly 500 lawyers — the lowest rating for a justice in decades. But they also concede that he would be targeted regardless of his rating. We don’t believe that the rating a justice gets from lawyers should be overemphasized, especially considering that Wiggins got his lowest marks for items such as “temperament and demeanor” when dealing with lawyers who argue before the court. And most politicians would be thrilled with 63 percent approval.

NO BROAD VIEW

There is nothing in Wiggins’ judicial record that would warrant his removal, not within the many majority opinions he’s penned or in numerous dissents he’s authored or joined. But his opponents have refused to take a broader view of his judicial record, choosing to focus on the Varnum ruling.

They argue that their focus is on Iowa’s judiciary, but the evidence of national culture war politics driving their effort is unmistakable. Although court critics are spending less on their effort than in 2010, much of the money is still coming from out of state, according to campaign finance filings. The Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage has spent nearly $140,000 on ousting Wiggins, along with $50,000 from CitizenLink, an affiliate of Colorado-based Focus on the Family, and $25,000 from Patriot Voices, a group formed by former Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum. It’s likely more dollars will flow in before the dust settles Tuesday.

Wiggins supporters, who are putting up a stronger fight than two years ago, have also received outside dollars, including $100,000 from the Human Rights Campaign and an affiliated political action committee, donated to the Iowa group Justice Not Politics. But those donations would not be necessary if court critics had not continued the drive to boot justices.

POTENTIAL DAMAGE

And it’s the political dimensions of this campaign that make it potentially damaging. It’s not difficult to recognize that the thinly veiled intent of this campaign against the court is to push the state’s independent judiciary into the partisan political arena. There, they hope judges will weigh the political implications of their rulings alongside their obligation to administer blind justice. Some of the same activists targeting Wiggins want to change Iowa’s judicial selection system to make it identical to a federal system steeped in politics, with partisan calculations and pitched confirmation battles.

Thankfully, no matter what happens Tuesday, Iowa’s merit-based judicial selection system will remain standing. Our judges will continue to be selected for their skills, qualifications and experience, not by which partisan litmus tests they pass.

What voters can do Tuesday is send a clear message to those who would assail, demonize and politicize our courts: Enough is enough. Turn over the ballot and vote yes on retention — yes for an independent judiciary with the freedom to do its job.

Read the article from The Gazette.

Everything you need to know to go vote

from The Des Moines Register.

Election Day is Tuesday, but as Iowans well know, voting has been under way for weeks. Below is information on Election Day, as well as how to register and how to vote early.

Registering to vote

To register, you must be a U.S. citizen, a resident of Iowa and at least 18 years old on Election Day.

Further, you cannot be a convicted felon (unless your voting rights have been restored), judged mentally incompetent by a court or claim the right to vote in any other place.

The deadline for registering to vote in Tuesday’s general election was Oct. 27.

But Iowa does allow same-day registration for voters casting ballots early at their county auditor’s office or on Election Day at their local polling place.

To verify your registration status, go to http://sos.iowa.gov/elections/voterreg/regtovote/search.aspx.

To register and vote on Election Day, you must go to the polling place for your current address and prove who you are and where you live.

Identification can be proven using:

• An Iowa driver’s license.

• An Iowa non-driver ID card.

• An out-of-state driver’s license or non-driver ID card.

• A U.S. passport.

• A U.S. military ID.

• A student ID issued by an Iowa high school or college.

Residency can be proved with:

• An ID if it displays your current address.

• A residential lease; a utility or phone bill.

• A bank statement.

• A paycheck.

• A government check or other government document that displays your current address.

If any of the identification or residency documents cannot be provided, a registered voter from your precinct may attest to your identity and residency on your behalf by signing a sworn oath. Falsely attesting and being attested for are class D felony offenses punishable by a fine of up to $7,500 and up to five years in prison.

Early voting

Iowa allows early and absentee voting without excuse for 40 days before Election Day.

Voting prior to Election Day can be done by mail or in person at county election offices and satellite voting stations. The deadline for requesting an absentee ballot by mail was Friday.

Absentee ballots returned by mail must be postmarked by Monday and received by the county auditor no later than Nov. 12. Absentee ballots may not be returned to individual polling places on Election Day, but can be delivered to the county auditor’s office before 9 p.m. on Election Day.

Voters also may surrender their absentee ballot at their polling place and vote on a regular ballot instead. If a voter cannot turn in their absentee ballot when attempting to vote in person, they may vote a provisional ballot.

To vote early in person, you must go to your county elections or auditor’s office or a satellite office established by the county auditor. In Polk County, voters may vote at the Polk County Election Office between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday.

If you’ve already voted absentee, you may check the status of the ballot by going to http://sos.iowa.gov/elections/absenteeballotstatus/search.aspx.

Election Day voting

Voters may find their polling place by going to http://sos.iowa.gov/elections/voterreg/pollingplace/search.aspx.

Presenting a voter-registration card is not necessary when voting in person on Election Day.

But you may be asked to show identification if:

• You registered to vote by mail after Jan. 1, 2003, and have never voted in a primary or general election in your county.

• You have moved from where you are registered to vote.

• Your right to vote has been challenged.

• The precinct election officials do not know you.

If you are asked to provide identification, you may use:

• A current and valid photo ID card.

• A current utility or phone bill.

• A current bank statement.

• A current paycheck or government check.

• Another current government document.

Polling places are required to ensure voting is accessible to all voters, and must provide balloting devices for voters with hearing or visual impairments and physical disabilities, procedures to assist voters who need help because of a disability or inability to read English and curbside-voting options for voters who cannot enter the polling place.

Voters may wear campaign buttons or clothing, but must leave the polling place immediately after casting their ballot. Children are allowed at polling places while their parents vote. Voters who are required to be at work for an extended period are entitled to three hours off to cast their ballot.

Read the article from The Des Moines Register.

State Senate needs Willems

Letter to the Editor, from The Gazette.

During the last session of the Iowa Legislature, commercial property tax was an issue that was not resolved. Republicans favor a proposal that will give 40 percent property tax breaks to large out-of-state corporations, such as Walmart — Iowans’ money that will leave the state.

Dan Zumbach, candidate for the Iowa Senate, stated in a September League of Women Voters forum that he would support this plan.

The problem with the Republican plan: Who will make up the difference? Either homeowners’ property taxes will increase or cities, counties, and schools will lose critical funding or both.

Nate Willems supports commercial property tax relief that targets help for main street businesses.

I hope you will consider voting for Willems for state Senate. He will vote for hometown businesses.

Mark and Jackie Stewart

Lisbon

Judicial retention

from The Quad City Times Editorial Board.

We support all judges on the Nov. 6 ballot, beginning with Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins.

Judicial retention gives voters an opportunity to remove unjust, reckless or lazy judges. It never should be an opportunity to submit judges to a litmus test on gay marriage or any other single issue.

Yet a group of Iowans has used only one criteria to oust three previous Supreme Court justices and hack-attack Wiggins for the “crime” of interpreting Iowa’s Constitution as written. Wiggins was part of the unanimous ruling that upheld the state Constitution over a poorly written gay marriage law. We salute Wiggins for ruling that Iowa’s constitution does not permit laws that pick and choose a preferred gender, race or sex orientation.

Unable to muster enough votes to change the constitution, or even change Iowa’s judicial selection process, this group actually mashes the Constitution by inflicting a highly partisan political agenda paid for mostly by out-of-state interests.

We support an Iowan who has earned bipartisan support with his strict backing of the Constitution. We condemn those who aggressively solicit out-of-state funding to inflict their own biases on others.

Read the article from The Quad City Times.

For Iowans, high stakes in state Senate elections

from The Associated Press, featured in The Globe Gazette.

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — While the presidential race is getting the most attention in Iowa and elsewhere, a handful of state Senate races could determine whether Iowans get their most conservative state government in years and likely policy changes that will have a greater impact on their lives.

Republicans and aligned interest groups have launched an aggressive bid to wrest control of the state Senate from Democrats, who’ve led the chamber for six years. If Republicans pick up two seats and retain a majority in the state House, as expected, their party would control the full General Assembly and the governor’s office for the first time since 1998.

That development would allow the approval of a series of conservative economic and social policies that Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has blocked over the past two years with Democrats holding the Senate 26-24. Republicans would again push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, a law to require voters to show identification at the polls, and cuts for state workers’ health care benefits. Controversial education reform plans would also likely be on the agenda.

Republicans are campaigning more on economic plans that they say will attract business. They’re pledging to enact a long-debated plan to cut Iowa’s commercial and industrial property tax rates, which are among the highest in the nation, and to slow the rise of residential property taxes.

“I’ve been telling people every time I get a chance: just two votes are what’s separating us from moving forward on regulatory reform, property tax reform, education reform. All of those issues have been summarily dismissed or blocked in the Senate,” said Senate Republican leader Jerry Behn, of Boone. “I’m really looking forward to winning the majority, winning the confidence of Iowans and getting to work on these policies that I genuinely believe are really going to make things go in Iowa.”

Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Sue Dvorsky said the party’s strong organization to re-elect President Barack Obama would help it retain control by turning out base voters. She said Democrats were also warning independents that Republicans would enact an extreme and divisive agenda.

“There is a very good argument to be made for regular Iowans that turning over the entire state government to this incarnation of the Republican Party is not a good idea,” she said. “Voters sure as heck don’t want the 2012 Iowa Republican Party in charge of everything that has to do with schools, clean air, clean water and collective bargaining rights for public employees.”

The outcome will be determined by who wins a series of local races such as those between Republican Sen. Shawn Hamerlinck and Democratic challenger Chris Brase in the Muscatine area, and Democratic Sen. Jeff Danielson and Republican Matt Reisetter in the Waterloo area. Two incumbents, Republican Sen. Merlin Bartz and Democratic Sen. Mary Jo Wilhelm, are facing off in another high-profile contest after redistricting put them in the same northern Iowa district.

The Republicans’ biggest prize would be not only to win a majority but to end the 30-year career of Gronstal, a Council Bluffs Democrat running hard for re-election against conservative upstart Al Ringgenberg.

Both sides say winning the tight presidential race would help their candidates down the ballot. But they also say individual attributes of candidates — such as how established they are in a district and how hard they work — could be decisive.

…Social conservative groups, including the Family Leader, have mailed thousands of fliers for Republicans who they hope will pass a constitutional amendment undoing Iowa’s status as one of six states that allow gay marriage. The amendment, which Gronstal has blocked for years, requires passage in two straight legislative sessions and a statewide referendum. Gay rights activists have donated heavily to Democrats to defeat that effort.

Each senator serves a four-year term, represents about 61,000 people and earns a $25,000 salary. Typically, 25 seats are up for election every two years but this year features 26, a quirk of redistricting. And the death of Republican Sen. Pat Ward of Clive this month means a special election will be held for her seat Dec. 11 — which could be decisive if the chamber ends up closely divided Tuesday.

Read the full article from The Associated Press.

Daily Iowan Endorsement: Vote yes on judicial retention

from The University of Iowa’s Daily Iowan.

The Daily Iowan Editorial Board stands firmly in the “yes” camp in regards to judicial retention. In fact, we regret even having to take up the issue on this page, as the Iowa Constitution is clear on the matter.

Judge David Wiggins served on the Iowa Supreme Court in the Varnum v. Brien decision in 2009, which legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa and which incited anti-gay organizations around the state and nation, including a recent bus tour lead by Rick Santorum, to mobilize against the court.

Three of Wiggins’ fellow justices out of seven on the court were ousted in 2010 because of their votes in the unanimous decision, and the anti-Wiggins group, Iowans for Freedom, vowed to continue its campaign until every so-called “activist” judge involved in the Varnum decision had been removed.

The group’s scare tactics come in stark contrast to David Wiggins’ decision not to campaign for his spot on the bench, as befits a post that is meant to be neutral and nonpolitical in nature. Yet if the 2010 trend of retaliation against justices continues and Wiggins is removed, as were his colleagues were last election cycle, a dangerous precedent will be established.

As the Iowa Bar states, “Judges must be neutral and follow the rule of law.” Yet if judicial intimidation becomes the norm, the judiciary cannot possibly maintain the neutrality necessary to make unpopular — but constitutionally sound — decisions. Judges will begin to respond to political pressure instead of a studied reading and application of the law. They will become politically polarized, risking the same stalemate Congress has found itself in over the last four years — a fate that is exactly what the Constitution intends to guard against.

Iowa has a long tradition of being on the right side of history. Eighty-six years before Brown v. Board of Education struck down its previous “separate but equal” decision as unconstitutional, the Iowa Supreme Court decided Iowa schools were open to all students regardless of color in its 1868 decision, Clark v. Board of Directors.

Likewise, in the court’s 1873 Coger v. North West Union Packet Co. decision, the court ruled that African Americans could not be denied equal access to public accommodations.

Again in 1949, in Griffin v. Katz Drug Store, the state Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a drugstore owner who refused to serve African American customers, determining that the discrimination violated Iowa civil-rights statutes.

If Iowa had established a tradition of removing any justices that made these decisions from the beginning in 1868, it is doubtful that the court would have continued issuing opinions that upheld Iowans’ civil rights in 1873 and 1949.

In 1962, Iowa voters voted to amend the Constitution of the state. Instead of electing judges with a popular vote, the states’ citizens agreed that a merit selection and subsequent retention elections for judges would closer meet Iowans’ needs for an impartial judiciary.

In doing so, Iowa committed itself further to the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes a Supreme Court free of the political pressure of elections and states that “the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States.”

“Judges,” the Constitution continues, “both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior.”

The targeted campaign against Wiggins suggests that he should be ousted under this last clause. Yet Wiggins has done nothing that would suggest he has compromised the “Integrity, Professional Competence, Judicial Temperament, Experience, and Service” that Iowa has laid out as measures for its judges to be assessed by.

The campaign against Wiggins is clear, and it has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with politics.

Read the article from The Daily Iowan.

Gronstal defends Iowa Senate District 8 seat

from KETV.

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa — Majority Leader Mike Gronstal faces a challenge for his Iowa Senate District 8 seat.

Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, has served in the Iowa Senate since 1985.

“I go out and I talk to people, and I ask what the Legislature should be dealing with,” said Gronstral.

Gronstral said he continues to hear concerns about the lack of jobs. That’s why he’s developed this 3-point jobs plan: give Iowa companies the first chance at state and local contracts, cut commercial property taxes by $250 million, and create low-interest loans to small business. He also said he wants to increase funds to community colleges.

“Providing the resources so they can provide the training for those mid-level-skill kind of jobs out there,” Gronstral said.

The challenger is Republican Al Ringgenberg of Perry, Iowa. He said his main concern is the high property taxes affecting families and businesses.

“Homes are becoming vacant. The business sector on West Broadway looks like Detroit,” Ringgenberg said.

Ringgenberg said the property taxes are too high. His proof is the public list of more than 2,000 families in distressed property tax status in Council Bluffs.

“With the tax credit schemes you see affecting the mall here, all that tax burden ends up getting shifted to residential homeowners, and it has increased residential taxes by about 15 percent,” Ringgenberg said.

Read the article from KETV.

Iowa Senate contest is a ‘top race to watch’

from The Muscatine Journal.

CEDAR RAPIDS – An open seat race in a “classic swing district” that may hold the key to control of the Iowa Senate is getting some end-of-the campaign attention.

GOPAC-Iowa, a Republican political action group will announce Thursday the Senate District 48 race in Linn, Delaware and Jones counties is one of its “races to watch.” That designation will be accompanied by an endorsement and financial backing, according GOPAC-Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn.

“By anyone’s estimation, there are just a handful of toss-up seats that will determine control of the Senate,” he said.

Republican Dan Zumbach and Rep. Nate Willems, D-Lisbon, are vying for the seat in Senate 48, a district created by redistricting. It stretches from Palo in western Linn County to Colesburg in northeast Delaware County, from Rowley in Buchanan County to Anamosa in Jones County.

According to the Secretary of State’s Office, Republicans have a slight voter registrations edge – 30 percent to 28 percent for Democrats and 42 percent “no party.”

“It’s the type of district that will determine whether Republicans or Democrats control the Senate,” Strawn said Oct. 24. Democrats have had a 26-24 majority for the past two years.

Zumbach, 51, is a rural Ryan grain farmer who also hauls grain and sells farm equipment.

Willems, 33, is an associate at the Cedar Rapids law firm Rush & Nicholson where he practices labor and employment law.

GOPAC also identified the Senate 28 race in Winneshiek, Clayton, Fayette and Allamakee counties as one to watch. There, Republican Michael Breitbach faces Democrat John Beard, who was defeated for re-election the Iowa House two years ago.

Read the full article from The Muscatine Journal.

Iowa courts should be free from politics

By Richard S. Bordwell, from Kalona News

To the editor:

Thankfully Iowans still have an independent judiciary, and cases like the recent campaign finance issue demonstrate the importance of keeping it that way. In our rural eastern Iowa county, a conservative Republican challenger defeated a sitting Republican county supervisor in the June primary. The winner and several others were charged with indictable criminal offenses for minor campaign contribution violations, even though the Iowa Campaign Finance Disclosure Board did not recommend filing criminal charges.

Separate juries found two candidates not guilty. By all accounts, these were just verdicts. Iowans should not take non-political judges for granted.

Fifty years ago Republicans and Democrats untied to adopt our current merit system of selecting judges. When a judicial vacancy occurs, a volunteer, nonpartisan, unpaid, gender-balanced nominating commission for that district evaluates and interviews candidates. This commission, half appointed by the governor and half elected by lawyers, submits two names to the governor. The governor must appoint one of the candidates so nominated. This system, supported by both Republicans and Democrats for half a century, has largely removed Iowa’s judges from partisan politics.

How ironic that a conservative Republican gubernatorial reject, unhappy with one decision of the court, is currently fighting to dismantle Iowa’s independent judicial system as he preaches the virtues of the constitution. Recently he said on IPTV’s “Iowa Press” that judges should be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate, effectively stamping out merit selection. Since the Iowa Senate is in session for only 100 days each year and judges are appointed as vacancies occur year-round, most judicial appointments would be “recess appointments” which would not require Senate confirmation. This means the governor could appoint any lawyer, and each judge would have only the governor to thank for his or her job. Where are the checks and balances?

The last thing we need in Iowa is more partisan divisiveness. You can be upset at a judge on individual cases, but in our constitutional system you are free to appeal or work to change the law through legislation or constitutional amendment. Justice-loving Iowans should not stand by and allow a politician to dismantle Iowa’s fair and evenhanded way of selecting judges. The current Iowa court system is good for Iowans and is a good tool for Iowa economic development.

It would be preposterous to dismantle our bipartisan, merit-based and unbiased judicial nomination process because we disagree with one ruling of the court.

The best way to preserve the integrity of our court system is to vote YES to retain all judges and justices on the November ballot. Vote YES to tell politicians to keep their hands off the Iowa court system.

As a registered Republican and a lawyer I much prefer living with a few court rulings I disagree with than having my clients’ cases tried by a compromised judiciary.

Richard S. Bordwell
Washington

Read the article from Kalona News.