Justices did their job

By The Gazette Editorial Board

The retention vote on three Iowa Supreme Court justices has been the state buzz leading up to Tuesday's election. It's become louder than the contentious governor's race. It's drawing national attention.

As it should. Because, as Chief Justice Marsha Ternus told us in late October, this retention election is more than voters deciding whether to keep her and two other justices on the bench of Iowa's highest court.

It's about our court system, impartiality and protecting everyone's rights.

It's about Iowans deciding: Should judges be voted out because of one ruling with which some citizens vigorously disagree?

We certainly believe Iowans should exercise their right to vote on judicial retention. Incompetency or illegal, corrupt behavior are valid reasons to remove a judge.

However, casting out Justices Ternus, Baker and Streit would deliver a different, risky message.

These justices have drawn fire after they and their four Iowa Supreme Court colleagues unanimously ruled last year that a state law, the Defense of Marriage Act, was unconstitutional. The act defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

Citing the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution - our state's supreme law - the ruling meant that same-sex couples no longer could be denied the right to civil (legal) marriage in Iowa. It did not, as some worried, force churches and religious groups to marry same-sex couples. It upheld freedom of religion.

Nonetheless, Bob Vander Plaats and supporters mounted a campaign to have the justices removed, accusing them of legislating from the bench and diminishing freedom for Iowans. They see this one as evidence that Iowa judges want to dictate how we live.

Not so.

The ruling did not deny Iowans the right to seek amendment of the Constitution. That avenue has been used 47 times since the Iowa Legislature enacted our current constitution in 1857. The justices simply followed that document's provisions when they ruled on the marriage issue.

Also effectively on trial in the retention vote is Iowa's merit-based system of selecting and training judges, in place since 1962 and highly respected nationwide. Why replace it with a partisan system, whereby judicial candidates campaign and raise money to be elected, exposing themselves to influence from powerful special interest groups and wealthy individuals?

Not to say the present system can't be improved. The judicial nominating commissions that recommend candidates to the governor must, by law, be gender balanced. No such requirement for political partisanship. Other state boards and commissions require partisan balance. Why not those that screen and select judicial nominees?

First, though, is Tuesday's vote. We hope that fair-minded, freedom-loving Iowans weigh not just one ruling, albeit a landmark decision. Rather, consider whether these justices are competent and impartial in doing their job: upholding our constitution as it stands.