Even 'economic development' has its limits

There was something almost embarrassing about watching the chief justice of the Iowa Supreme Court stand before legislators last week and practically beg for enough money to keep the courts afloat.

And more embarrassing, still, the argument Chief Justice Mark Cady thought would most strongly make his case.

Cady asked for a $10 million bump in funding to undo the havoc budget cuts have wrought in recent years, and to expand a much-needed electronic court documenting system.

But Cady didn't argue for the money based on efficiency or in the service of some lofty idea like due process. Iowa should fund its court system, he argued, because will help with state economic development.

Listen, I understand that when times are tight, you can use the magic words “economic development” to sell legislators and the public on everything from school reform to changes in the tax code.

And I can't blame Cady for trying - when the judicial branch has so little to show for years of pleading with legislators to adequately fund the state's overburdened courts.

But it irritates me that things have gotten so out of whack that we have to justify spending a relatively tiny amount of money on a critical government function by saying it's good for business.

Forget the State of the Judiciary, it's the state's understanding of the judiciary that we should be concerned about.

Leaders' complete disregard for the courts was clear during the torch-and-pitchfork response to Varnum v. Brien, the 2009 state Supreme Court ruling that opened the door for same-sex marriage.

We saw it again last year when legislators and the governor played politics for months instead of paying court-appointed attorneys for work they'd already done.

Courthouses have been operating with reduced staff and on reduced hours for two years now in an attempt to make ends meet.

Some counties don't even have a full-time clerk of court - making it that much more difficult for the system to process cases and for people to access the courts. But that hasn't seemed to bother leaders overly much.

Apparently it's true, by the way - strong courts and strong economies do tend to go hand-in-hand, although which comes first isn't always clear.

And I doubt that's because forward-thinking legislators decide to fund the courts because it's good for business.

I'm all for economic development, but I sure do miss a legislature that understands it's own business - doing government.

Comments: (319) 339-3154; jennifer.hemmingsen@sourcemedia.net