Fighting for independent judiciary

By The Gazette Editorial Board

---

There are many lessons to be learned from this month's judicial retention vote. But perhaps none is so important as this: When court justices come under fire by political groups using political tactics for their own political ends, supporters of an independent judiciary must take off the gloves.

To throw down and do more than try to educate citizens about the unique role of the judicial branch. To fight back.

There are valid reasons why supporters of Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices Michael Streit and David Baker, such as Iowans for Fair and Impartial Courts, chose not to take advantage of the tools and strategies commonly found in political campaigns for legislative and executive office, focusing instead on educating voters about the proper role of the judicial branch.

“One of the advantages of Iowa's merit selection system is it removes the politics and the special interest investment - money - from the selection of our judges,” Iowa State Bar Association spokesman Steve Boeckman told us last week. “We didn't want the system to become politicized.”

But, like it or not, same-sex marriage opponents did politicize the retention vote. In that climate of hostility, educational strategies alone just weren't enough.

In Iowa, political campaigning for judicial positions has been extremely rare. We agree that it's problematic and inappropriate for Supreme Court justices and others to raise money and campaign on their own behalf.

That could create problems in the courtroom - if the court was asked to decide on a case involving parties that had contributed to a justice's campaign, for example. Courts must avoid even the appearance of political influence.

If other Supreme Court justices are targeted again for removal simply for doing their jobs, and that's not unlikely, outside groups and supporters should be prepared to launch a targeted counterattack focusing on the threat - not just generalities about Iowa' judicial system. Then hit the street, knock on doors, create ad campaigns. That's what the justices' opponents did.

Voters must do a better job of learning about what's at stake, too - and weigh in. More than 130,000 passed on marking their ballots' retention question.

We all lose when a vocal minority of motivated single-issue advocates are able to grab hold of a judicial retention election just to make a point.

And although a handful of similar efforts failed in other states this election season, activists say they're just warming up. Some legal experts and defenders of an independent judiciary worry the Iowa results will fuel even more aggressive attacks on judiciaries across the country. They worry about a chilling effect on courts, which are constitutionally tasked with interpreting laws - not issuing popular opinions.

They know it is critical that our courts not be swayed by prevailing political winds. So they must be better prepared for a fight next time.