Chief Justice Christensen goes after pay raises for Iowa judges

DES MOINES — Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Susan Christensen says she never forgot the question a reporter asked after her first Condition of the Judiciary address to the Legislature in 2021 — why didn’t she mention money?

Christensen told The Gazette last week she didn’t think about money at the time because she wanted to introduce herself to lawmakers — having just been appointed chief justice in February 2020 — and also talk about the positive things going on in the courts, focusing instead on “hope,” the theme of her address that year.

This January, the theme of her Condition of the Judiciary speech was “Building Connections.” So bringing together the legislative branch with its “constituents” — judges — seemed like a good time to talk about judicial salaries, which have stagnated and are much lower than judicial salaries in surrounding states.

“The judges meet twice a year, and I can feel what they are feeling. … It’s hitting them in the gut, so I decided to be the face of frustration and talk about pay,” Christensen said. “The buck stops with me. The judges feel like they can’t progress with less than cost of living.”

In Iowa, a district judge is paid an annual salary of $158,056. In Illinois, the salary is $234,380. Nebraska pays $196,393; Minnesota, $182,805; South Dakota, $174,448; Missouri, $169,789; and Wisconsin, $171,080, according to the National Center for State Courts.

Illinois is ranked No. 3 in what it pays judges. Iowa is No. 42.

Nebraska judges are to receive a pay hike in fiscal 2025 when their annual salaries will become $50,120 more than Iowa judges.

Christensen said Kansas did something unique about judicial salaries there, tying state judge salaries to federal district judge salaries.

Kansas is ranked even lower than Iowa, at No. 48 for judicial salaries, according to the National Center for State Courts. But the Kansas Legislature last year passed a law implementing the new judicial salary formula, using district judge salaries as its “lodestar.”

On Jan. 1, 2025, Kansas district judges will begin earning 75 percent of the annual salary of a federal district judge — $243,000 this year. Salaries for the remaining state judges will be calculated from that district judge figure, according to the National Center for State Courts.

Pay history

Over the past 15 years, Iowa judges have received five pay raises and have been turned down for raises 10 times, according to Iowa Judicial Branch data.

Judges went without increases for four consecutive years, from 2010 through 2013, and then again for three years from 2015 through 2017. Most of the pay raises that were granted have been for 2 percent or 3 percent.

Considering inflation, a judge’s pay has been reduced 17.2 percent over the past 12 years, according to judicial data.

Christensen said she feels like Charlie Brown’s “wah-wah” teacher as she talks about judicial salaries over and over, but she said she’s learned not everyone is aware of this issue across the state.

  Buy Photo

She was asked to speak about judicial pay to the Polk County Bar Association this year, and one lawyer told her many of the lawyers were learning about the pay disparity and its impact for the first time.

She realizes the public probably doesn’t know about it either, and they are the ones going before Iowa judges in civil and criminal matters, and they likely want judges who are qualified and experienced.

And that is the concern, she said, because fewer lawyers are applying for judicial appointments because of the low salary.

Impacts of pay

The number of applicants for district court judge positions has declined 61 percent since 2003, according to judicial data. The average number of private practice lawyers applying also has dropped from around eight in 2009 to around two in 2023.

  Buy Photo

Many of the recent applicants and lawyers nominated for judicial appointments have been county attorneys — because being a judge may be a pay hike for them, as opposed to someone in a successful private practice, said Tim Semelroth, a personal injury lawyer with RSH Legal in Cedar Rapids and a member of the State Judicial Nominating Commission.

“We’re not paying a salary to attract a high level of experience or expertise needed in the civil litigation cases, which can be complicated issues involving insurance law and probate that no prosecutor would have ever encountered, Semelroth said.

“Judges are smart, and they can do research, but sometimes it’s helpful to have that previous experience and a more diverse court.”

Semelroth, who was on the 6th District Judicial Nominating Commission for six years, said the commission wanted to nominate district associate judges for district court openings because they had a “track record for success” in the lower court. But fewer and fewer wanted to move up, knowing the promotion would mean higher caseloads, more “windshield time” — district judges travel throughout the district for trials and rulings — and the pay is only slightly higher.

Now, not only are private practice lawyers not applying, but the possible internal candidates — district associate judges who have the work experience — aren’t interested, Semelroth said.

Laura Schultes, an employment law attorney with RSH Legal and a member of the 6th District Judicial Nominating Commission, agreed the number of applicants has lessened over the years. In the past year, 10 or fewer have applied for an associate judge position and only five or six have applied for three district judge openings.

Schultes said they still have good candidates for judgeships, but it is a growing concern for the commission. No matter how much someone wants to be a public servant, some aren’t in a financial position to possibly take a pay cut, she said.

The nominating commission, she said, is united in hoping to see a bigger pool of applicants and a variety of experience.

Evidence that judicial salary ‘stinks’

Christensen said the judicial branch is asking lawmakers for a 3.2 percent increase for fiscal year 2025, based on the cost-of-living adjustment, and another 3 percent, which legislators agreed to last year but then didn’t fund so judges received no increase.

  Buy Photo

Rep. Brian Lohse, R-Bondurant, said they did agree to a 3 percent increase last year, but Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds wasn’t open to it and the Senate didn’t back it. For fiscal 2025, Reynolds has proposed a 2 percent increase for judges. Lohse said he doubts the 6.2 percent request will pass.

Lohse, chair of House Justice Systems Budget subcommittee, agreed that Iowa isn’t competitive in regards to state judges’ salaries. This is only his second year dealing with the budget and, as an attorney who practiced in Illinois, a pay increase for judges is a priority for him. He has a different perspective from the subcommittee’s former chair, Gary Worthen, and believes the House will support judicial issues.

Lohse and Christensen also pointed to a proposed bill, House File 2208, which highlights the problem of judicial salaries and is “evidence the (judicial) salary stinks,” Christensen noted.

The proposed law would strike the requirement that Iowa counties cannot pay a county attorney more than what a district judge is paid. That prohibition does not apply to counties with populations over 200,000 — meaning Linn and Polk counties. Linn County Attorney Nick Maybanks is being paid $209,538 this fiscal year; a district court judge earns $158.056.

The House Judiciary Committee approved the bill in January, advancing it to the full House for consideration.

Removing that salary ceiling, Christensen said, likely will reduce the number of prosecutors applying for a judicial position.

Judicial retirement system

Christensen also is working with legislators to change the Judicial Retirement System, which is unlike other pension systems. Other court employees participate in the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System, IPERS, but judges have a separate pension.

Based on Iowa law, once the Judicial Retirement System reaches “fully funded status,” both the state’s and a judge’s contribution rates change from a fixed amount to a variable rate.

The judicial pension became fully funded for the first time at the start of fiscal year 2022. When the balance goes below that level, which it already has, there’s no provision to go back to the fixed rate, Christensen said.

So the money that judges and the state pay into the retirement system will no longer be fixed and will fluctuate from year to year. Christensen said this means any pay increase will likely be “gobbled up” in the retirement rate increase.

The judicial branch proposed House Study Bill 529, which will return the retirement system to a fixed rate, where a judge’s contribution is 9.35 percent and the state pays 30.6 percent, Christensen said.

Lohse said the House is supportive of the fixed rate, but he didn’t know if the Senate would be on board. The bill was sent to the Judiciary Committee last week. If the fixed rate isn’t viable, there may be other options such as capping the variable rate, he added.

Christensen said she remains positive and is willing to work with legislators on the pay issue and the retirement system.

She also is going to ask judges across the state to contact their local representatives and senators “during their off time” about these issues. She understands some may be apprehensive but said she can give them “talking points.”

Comments: (319) 398-8318; trish.mehaffey@thegazette.com

  Buy Photo