Five years of supreme outreach by Iowa’s highest court

Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady stopped by Friday to meet with our editorial board. It's been five years since the last time we spoke with him.

Back then, the state's highest court was dealing with the aftermath of the 2010 election, which saw a successful campaign by religious conservatives to kick three justices off the bench. The trio joined a unanimous decision striking down Iowa's same-sex marriage ban, so our Family Leaders and other culture warriors insisted they had to go.

It was a campaign filled with vitriol, disinformation and dishonest arguments about how courts and judges do their work. Cady and his colleagues smartly responded with an effort to make the court more publicly accessible and transparent, hoping Iowans would gain a better understanding of the judiciary.

Cady told us, since then, the court has heard oral arguments in 22 Iowa communities. Justices have made 140 public appearances at schools and community colleges.

'It's been something where we not only see success, but we feel it when we go into communities,” Cady said. 'Each one of these visits leave us with a sense that the public appreciates seeing its court in its community, and gains a better appreciation for the value of the court system.”

I asked Cady whether its transparency offensive would help the court fend off the next politically charged assault. Cady, along with justices Daryl Hecht and Brent Appel, is up for retention on this fall's ballot. No campaign similar to 2010 or 2012 has yet emerged, but the election still is nearly seven months away.

'The seven of us on the Supreme Court do our work consistent with the oath we've taken,” Cady said. 'I'm going to depend upon that approach for us to get through, for us to move forward from retention election to retention election.”

But a case currently before the court on felon voting rights could become the new same-sex marriage.

Justices are being asked to decide whether constitutional language denying voting rights to anyone convicted of an 'infamous crime” should be interpreted to include all felonies or a far more narrow set of crimes directly affecting voting. A ruling for a more narrow definition would extend voting rights to tens of thousands of felons.

A decision could come this summer, if the court follows its typical three or four month process from arguments to ruling. But the politics are taking shape now.

In an op-ed appearing in multiple Iowa newspapers, Republican Secretary of State Paul Pate gave us a preview when he took aim at 'Washington, D.C.-based special interest groups” coming here to 'testify to our Supreme Court that Iowa should allow imprisoned child molesters, murderers and rapists vote in our elections.” The hyperbolic ads write themselves.

If the court does rule for a narrowed definition of infamy, which is no sure thing, it is likely Cady, Hecht and Appel will be with the majority. Their seats could get hot in a hurry.

But if Cady is worried, it doesn't show.

'I can just do my best work. I think that's what Iowans want,” said Cady, adding that he won't campaign for his retention.

l Comments: (319) 398-8452; todd.dorman@thegazette.com