| Republican State Representative Kent Sorenson is trying to amend the Iowa Constitution to bring back elections for the seven state Supreme Court justices.
Republicans Dwayne Alons and Jason Schultz joined Sorenson in introducing House Joint Resolution 2013 this week. It would amend the constitution to require Supreme Court justices to be elected to six-year terms. Lower-court judges would continue to be appointed, as they have been since Iowa approved a constitutional amendment in 1962 to eliminate judicial elections. Under the current system, the governor appoints district and Supreme Court judges from lists of nominees submitted by judicial nominating commissions.
Other social conservatives have vowed to defeat the three Supreme Court justices who are up for retention in 2010 because of last year's Varnum v Brien ruling, which cleared the way for same-sex marriage in Iowa. But even that isn't good enough for Sorenson and his allies. They are so upset about one court ruling that they would toss out a method for selecting judges which has worked well for nearly a half-century. The Des Moines-based American Judicature Society has plenty of resources on the importance of judicial independence and the benefits of a merit-based system over judicial elections. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent Citizens United case lifted restrictions on corporate spending to influence elections, providing another reason not to mess with Iowa's judicial selection process.
Sorenson's constitutional amendment probably won't go anywhere, but he may use the proposal as a rallying cry in his campaign against Staci Appel in Iowa Senate district 37 this year. Appel's husband, Brent Appel, is an Iowa Supreme Court justice. He is not up for retention this November.
UPDATE: Via the latest from Todd Dorman I learned that State Representative Rod Roberts, a Republican candidate for governor, has introduced his own constitutional amendment:
His proposal, House Joint Resolution 2012, calls for appointing nine justices - one from each judicial district and one at-large. It would require justices to continue to live in the district as long as they sit on the court.
"Even people in the legal profession tell me this would help the court get connected at the grass roots level," he said.
Justices should answer to the state constitution, the law and precedent, not to public sentiment. They're appointed through a bipartisan, drama-free process that focuses on their experience and qualifications. They already face regular retention votes.
So explain to me why we would throw out that system in favor of open electioneering. It's a horrible idea.
And picking them by geography instead of qualifications isn't much better.
How is this stuff conservative?
You don't want judges who "legislate from the bench," so you elect them just like legislators?
The Iowa Bar Association opposes the proposals from Sorenson and Roberts.