Highest and lowest-rated judges on Iowa's 2026 ballot

Iowans will decide this November whether to allow three Iowa Court of Appeals judges and 85 trial court judges to remain on the bench. Since our state adopted the current judicial selection system in 1962, each judge must periodically go on the ballot—every eight years for Iowa Supreme Court justices, every six years for those serving on other courts. (None of the seven Iowa Supreme Court justices is up for retention this year.)

Iowa voters have retained almost all judges over the past six decades. But any jurist who receives more “no” than “yes” votes in November—as happened with three Iowa Supreme Court justices in 2010—will be out of a job. The next governor would fill any vacancies in early 2027, after receiving a list of finalists from the State Judicial Nominating Commission (for the Iowa Court of Appeals) or its district-level counterpart (for District Court judges).

While some people routinely approve or reject every judge as a matter of principle, voters who want to make informed choices often find it difficult to learn anything about the judges listed on the back of the ballot.

This post highlights the appeals and district court judges who received the highest and lowest ratings in the Iowa State Bar Association’s 2026 Judicial Performance Review, the main public source of information about Iowa’s judges.

FEEDBACK FROM IOWA ATTORNEYS

There’s no objective way to determine how well a judge is doing the job. If you know and trust any attorneys in your area, it can be helpful to ask privately whether they are aware of serious concerns regarding anyone up for retention. That’s not a systematic way of learning how the legal community views any particular judge, though. Not every lawyer has experience with all the local judges, and reasonable minds can differ about their work. A judge may be well-liked by some but unpopular among those practicing in a certain area (such as criminal defense).

Some voters consider how a judge handled a high-profile case. For instance, District Court Judge Scott Beattie wrote a thorough and readable order explaining his decision to dismiss President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, Ann Selzer. District Court Judge Donna Bothwell issued several rulings favorable to prosecutors and unfavorable to the defense while presiding over the recent criminal trial of Joey Norris, a Democrat charged with a felony over his good-faith efforts to process absentee ballots correctly.

The Iowa State Bar Association’s Judicial Performance Reviews are a comprehensive and accessible resource for voters seeking to learn more about judges in their region. You can find reviews dating back to 1996 here. This year, the association sent the form to “all 9,671 attorneys licensed in Iowa,” of whom 964 completed the survey. The bar published the results on October 7.

Attorneys were instructed to evaluate a particular judge only if they have had some contact or first-hand experience with them, or have practiced before them in trial court, or have read their opinions (for appellate judges). That’s why the number of respondents for each judge is different, from fewer than 30 for some lower court judges in rural areas to 230 attorneys who filled out the form regarding Court of Appeals Judge Sharon Soorholtz Greer.

The ABA Center for Bar Leadership compiled the responses and calculated the average ratings for each judge. Attorneys gave judges a number between 1 (very poor) and 5 (excellent) on six metrics related to a judge’s professional competence:

knowledge and application of the law
perception of factual issues
attentiveness to arguments and testimony
temperament and demeanor
clarity and quality of written opinions
promptness of rulings and decisions

Attorneys rated judges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) on five metrics related to demeanor.

avoids undue personal observations or criticisms of litigants, judges, and lawyers from the bench or in written orders
decides cases on the basis of applicable law and fact, not affected by outside influence
is courteous and patient with litigants, lawyers, and court personnel
treats people equally regardless of race, gender, age, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, or disability and demonstrates an awareness of the influence of implicit bias
deals with pro se litigants (those representing themselves) and pro se litigation fairly and effectively

Finally, attorneys marked yes or no on retaining each judge.

These ratings are subjective as well, especially for judges evaluated by a small number of attorneys. I’ve heard criticism that low ratings can reflect an “old boy’s network” of attorneys, rather than any substantive problem with the judge’s work. So I wouldn’t consider the performance review a scientific assessment.

The first section of the review includes short biographies for each judge on the ballot: when they were appointed, where they went to college and law school, and where they worked before joining the bench. The survey results begin on page 31, starting with the three Appeals Court judges, then the lower court judges in numerical order by judicial district.

High marks for appeals court judges

Every Iowa voter will have a say on retaining the three Iowa Court of Appeals judges. Governor Kim Reynolds appointed them all: Judge John Sandy in June 2024, Judge Julie Schumacher in August 2019, and Judge Sharon Soorholtz Greer in April 2019. Their short biographies are on pages 6 and 7 of the review.

All received high marks (between good and excellent) overall, with Judge Soorholtz Greer averaging at least 4.4 on every metric. Even the lowest rating for Judge Schumacher was still a 4.3, and for Judge Sandy, 4.2. There are no red flags—unlike two years ago, when one of the four Court of Appeals judges on the ballot had much lower ratings than the others.

Highest-rated judges

Most judges on Iowa’s 2026 ballot received retention ratings of at least 90 percent, and almost all had the endorsement of at least 80 percent of attorneys who filled out the bar association survey. You can scroll through the performance review for details on each judge’s scores.

Your county of residence will determine which District Court judges appear on the back side of your ballot. This map from the Iowa Judicial Branch website shows the judicial district boundaries.

The following judges received particularly high overall marks (retention ratings above 95 percent) from attorneys who are familiar with their practice.

District 1A: Mark Hostager (97.1 percent)
District 1B: Michelle Jungers (100 percent)
District 2A: Mark Milder (100 percent), Adam Sauer (100 percent), Colleen Weiland (95.8%)
District 2B: Christopher Polking (96.2 percent), Joseph Tofilon (96.9 percent)
District 3A: Charles Borth (96.8 percent), Adam Miller (98.1 percent), Carl Petersen (100 percent), Andrew Smith (100 percent)
District 3B: Daniel Vakulskas (100 percent)
District 4: Craig Michael Dreismeier (100 percent), Matthew Schuling (96.4 percent)
District 5A: Nicholas Bailey (97.3 percent), Michael Jacobsen (97.0 percent), Thomas Murphy (96.6 percent)
District 5B: Elisabeth Reynoldson (95.3 percent), Andrew Zimmerman (100 percent)
District 5C: Scott Beattie (96.6 percent), Jordan Brackey (98.0 percent), Sarah Crane (96.3 percent), Samantha Gronewald (97.4 percent), Christopher Kemp (96.7 percent), Coleman McAllister (98.5 percent), Lawrence McLellan (98.1 percent), Lynn Poschner (100 percent), Joseph Seidlin (96.4 percent)
District 6: Jason Besler (95.1 percent), Michael Harris (98.6 percent), Angeline Johnston (97.9 percent), Casey Jones (98.3 percent)
District 7: Patrick McElyea (96.0 percent)
District 8A: Susan Cole (100 percent), Jennifer Jensen (100 percent), Amber Thompson (100 percent)
District 8B: Emily Dean (96.3 percent)

Lowest-rated judges

None of the judges up for retention this year received ratings as low as the lowest-rated judges from 2024. The five judges whose retention rating fell between 70 percent and 80 percent (District Associate Juvenile Judge Thomas Straka in District 1A, District Associate Judge Mark Cord in District 3B, District Associate Judge Mark Schlenker in District 5A, District Associate Judge Kristin Denniger Schneider in District 6, District Court Judge Jeffrey McDaniel in District 7) still had average scores in the “good” range on most of the metrics. Several of those were rated by a small number of attorneys as well, which means a few negative assessments can bring down the composite score.

Only three judges had fewer than 70 percent of attorneys recommend keeping them on the bench for another six-year term.

District Associate Judge Ashley West-Joons (District 4) had a retention rating of 67.7 percent. Only 31 attorneys evaluated her, and she hasn’t been a judge for long; Reynolds appointed her in 2024. Her lowest composite rating was a 3.5 for “decides cases on basis of applicable law and fact, not affected by outside influence.” She averaged a 3.6 in three categories: “temperament and demeanor,” “is courteous and patient with litigants, lawyers and court personnel,” and “avoids undue personal observations or criticisms of litigants, judges and lawyers from bench or in written opinions.”

In District 5C (Polk County), 63.7 percent of the 102 attorneys who evaluated District Associate Judge Brendan Greiner recommended retaining him. Appointed by Reynolds in 2018, his lowest ratings were for temperament and demeanor (3.1), courtesy and patience (3.2), avoids undue personal observations or criticisms (3.3), and “decides cases on basis of applicable law and fact, not affected by outside influence” (3.4).

Just 58.6 percent of the 99 attorneys who filled out the survey recommended retaining District Court Judge Mark Ray Lawson in District 7. Appointed by Governor Terry Branstad in 2013, he failed to average 4 out of 5 (a “good” rating) on any metric. His lowest marks were for temperament and demeanor (2.9), being courteous and patient (3.0), and avoiding undue personal observations or criticisms (3.2).