Impeachment, lawsuit tactics both misguided

By The Gazette Editorial Board

--

After nearly two months of hashing and rehashing the messages and implications of the historic vote to remove three justices from the Iowa Supreme Court, we think it's time to move on.

Apparently that sentiment isn't shared by three Iowa lawyers and a trio of incoming freshman state lawmakers.

The Des Moines-area lawyers, Thomas W. George, John P. Roehrick and Carlton Salmons, filed a lawsuit arguing that the Iowa Constitution mandates that judicial retention elections be conducted on a “separate ballot,” apart from other statewide and legislative races. They contend the last election violated that mandate by putting judges on the same ballot with races for governor and Legislature.

The new lawmakers, Reps. Tom Shaw, R-Laurens, Glen Massie, R-Des Moines, and Kim Pearson, R-Pleasant Hill, are drafting legislation that would open impeachment proceedings against the remaining four Supreme Court justices who were not on the November ballot. They, like those who pushed for tossing the three justices, are angered by the court's unanimous ruling striking down Iowa's ban on same-sex marriages.

Both efforts are misguided.

The lawsuit flies in the face of decades of common sense electoral practice in Iowa. Overturning that history would not change what happened in November.

The attorneys have dropped their initial request that the court stop the departing justices from leaving office on Dec. 31. Not even the justices themselves supported the effort.

But it could have a negative impact on future elections. Separate ballots would be costly for counties and confusing for voters. There's little doubt such an arrangement would drive down participation in retention elections, which many voters already skip. We fail to see any benefit that can be derived from this legal maneuvering. The lawsuit should be dropped.

We also see no reason to proceed with impeachment. The Iowa Constitution reserves impeachment for officeholders and judges who commit a “misdemeanor or malfeasance.” The marriage ruling sparked public outcry, to be sure, but we don't buy the argument that the court somehow acted illegally or overstepped its authority. Throughout history, Iowa's courts have settled questions of constitutional equity brought to them by Iowans. Although its ruling proved to be politically unpopular, this case was no different.

We'd also point out that Iowans didn't vote in November for a Legislature that would sidetrack important issues such as creating jobs, reforming our tax structure and reining in government spending to wage a long, divisive impeachment battle.

Experienced Republican leaders, such as incoming House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, should put an end to this effort and stay focused on Iowa's priorities.