ENDORSEMENT: Retain Iowa’s Supreme Court justices

Three Iowa Supreme Court Justices are among dozens of state judges standing for retention on Tuesday's ballot. It's an aspect of the 2016 largely lost amid the clamor swirling around races at the top of the ballot.

Chief Justice Mark Cady and Justices Daryl Hecht and Brent Appel have nearly 40 years of Supreme Court experience between them. Cady and Hecht also served on the Iowa Court of Appeals. Cady was first appointed to the bench as a district court judge in 1983. The Iowa State Bar Association's performance evaluation found the justices and 63 other state judges on the ballot across Iowa 'well-qualified.”

We agree, and urge voters to vote yes on retention.

Under Iowa's judicial selection system, qualifications and competence are what matter most. Judges and justices are selected by judicial nominating commissions based on their experience, professional accomplishments and demonstrated legal knowledge. From those picks, a governor makes his or her appointment to state courts. Unlike states that directly elect judges, Iowa's system is designed to keep partisan politics at arm's length.

Retention votes, under our system, are intended to focus on whether judges are doing their jobs and responsibly performing their duties. The votes act as a safety valve providing a mechanism for removing judges guilty of severe misconduct or professional incompetence.

Unfortunately, in 2010, Iowa strayed from this common-sense approach. Voters removed three Supreme Court Justices who took part in the unanimous 2009 ruling striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriages. Opponents of the ruling politicized the retention process with a high-dollar campaign fueled by falsehoods and scare tactics, urging voters to toss out highly-qualified justices who weighed facts and law and ruled for equality.

Fortunately, in 2012, Iowa voters rejected a similar campaign to remove Justice David Wiggins. Now, in 2016, a much smaller-scale campaign is calling for no votes on Cady, Hecht and Appel.

But we think 2012's vote and this fall's largely quiet retention landscape are evidence that Iowans have turned away from efforts to politicize our courts and assail its judges as 'activists.” We want judges and justices who will issue rulings based on the factual record, legal arguments and the rule of law, without fear of a political backlash from the right or left. We want courts that seek to settle serious questions of constitutional equity without first checking a public-opinion poll.

That's where we feared 2010 would lead us, to a court system swayed by politics and occupied by judges pushed to become political candidates. It now seems to have been a misguided detour rather than a troubling new path forward.

The real lesson of 2010 is vigilance. Iowans who care about our courts must be ready to oppose attempts to drag them into our political circus.

So even the limited vote no campaign activity we've seen this fall means the door to politicization remains open, if only a crack. On Tuesday, Iowa voters can close the door, and send a clear signal they want an independent judiciary free to do its important job undaunted by the clamor.

' Comments: (319) 398-8469; editorial@thegazette.com