Judicial system would be hurt by political influences

By Larry Zimpleman

-----------

For nearly 50 years, Iowa's merit-based system for selecting and retaining judges has been a highly respected model of good government; one that has ensured a fair and impartial judicial system for all Iowans.

But that system is being threatened because of a political disagreement over a single court ruling: the case in which the Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a state law banning same-sex marriage violated Iowa's constitutional guarantee of equal protection for all citizens.

The disagreement has fueled calls for replacing our current system of merit-based selection of judges with one using political appointments - or worse, political elections - to choose our judiciary. That would be a major step backward for Iowa.

Just as disturbing are calls urging Iowans to remove three Supreme Court justices when they vote on their retention in the Nov. 2 election.

All because of one ruling.

Bringing politics into our justice system hurts Iowans and our state on multiple levels.

As a business executive and a citizen, I am concerned about the potential dangers of a judiciary that makes rulings based on the fear of public outcry over an unpopular decision or campaign contributions from special interest groups rather than the law. How could anyone believe they would get a fair shake in a court system like that?

I also fear the impact on economic growth in the state.

A fair and impartial judicial system is a significant factor in providing the kind of stability needed to attract and retain business. It has played an important role in business planning at The Principal for many years.

Since 1990, The Principal has successfully expanded its operations into 12 countries. In each case, the fairness of the judicial system has been a prominent consideration in our decision over whether to enter a new country.

We believe business is unlikely to thrive in any jurisdiction where judges make rulings based on political pressure instead of the law.

More than one survey has demonstrated the importance of a fair and impartial judiciary to business. A 2010 U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey ranked each state's legal system based on how reasonable and balanced the system is viewed by business. Iowa ranked fifth best overall. Like Iowa, four of the top five ranked states use a merit system for selecting judges. Four of the states at the bottom of the survey select judges through elections. In addition, Iowa ranked fourth best for judges' impartiality.

The basis for Iowa's good judicial reputation is our current system in which a bipartisan commission selects judges based on qualifications, not political views. The retention vote is designed to remove judges who are unfit or unqualified, not those who make unpopular decisions.

For political reasons, several groups have recently mischaracterized the system as part of a “ruling class” staffed with activist judges who are accountable to no one.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Our simple, relatively inexpensive and effective system has served Iowa well for nearly 50 years.

Note I haven't mentioned where I stand on the same-sex marriage decision. For purposes of voting in the retention election, my view doesn't matter. The justices who decided the case did what we as citizens require them to do: They interpreted the Constitution. To remove them from office for doing what we require of them would be a fundamental error of good citizenship.

As a lifelong Iowan, I have often been proud of my state's dedication to good government. On Nov. 2, I hope Iowans will protect the common sense approach to Iowa's judicial system and the grave implications of turning away from it.

Larry Zimpleman is chairman, president and CEO of Principal Financial Group in Des Moines. Comments: larryzimple

man@principal.com