How to create activist judges

By Quad-City Times

---

We know Bob VanderPlaats is no fan of gay marriage. He made opposition to gay marriage a part of his failed campaign for governor. He made it a part of his failed attempt to push a conservative takeover of the state legislature.

When that didn't work, he turned his sights on the judiciary. A unanimous Iowa Supreme Court ruling in 2009 authorized same-sex marriages. VanderPlaats launched a drive to oust every Supreme Court justice who came up for retention.

He won the first round of that battle in 2010 when voters opposed retention of three justices on the ballot. Now VanderPlaats is waging another. At his Family Leader's Family Leadership Summit on Aug. 11 in Des Moines, VanderPlaats urged 1,000 conservative activists to vote against Justice David Wiggins' retention bid this fall.

In 2010, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices Michael Streit and David Baker lost retention when they chose not to personally campaign against VanderPlaats' single-issue attacks.

Wiggins, like his ousted colleagues, says he won't actively campaign. Instead, he'll adhere to judicial practice of letting the record speak for itself. That's an honorable judicial stance that we highly respect.

It also is a recipe for defeat against a campaign that ignores such ethical considerations.

If VanderPlaats succeeds in clearing the Iowa Supreme Court bench of those with ethical concerns about political campaigning, he'll create a vacuum filled with less-conscientious judges.

He'll create a safe haven for justices comfortable with publicly pronouncing judgments on issues before they reach the court. He'll create an environment where justices will have to solicit campaign contributions. Indeed, governors will have to appoint justices ready, willing and able to engage in the same kind of campaigning we've seen from the executive and legislative branches. If they're not, they'll be bulldozed at retention by VanderPlaats, or others with campaign funds big enough to finance single-issue campaigns.

Iowa picks justices based on merit, determined by a governor-appointed nominating commission and affirmed solely by the governor's decision. Then, those judges face public approval at periodic retention votes. Those votes are intended to give the public the ability to drum out reckless, lazy or incompetent justices.

It was never intended to be a public approval of a single judicial decision.

Interestingly, Iowans voted against the gay marriage justices, but voted overwhelmingly to stick with the same retention process.

Drive out justices who carefully distinguish between politics and justice, and Iowa will wind up with justices who do not.

---