Conservative group questions judges
Posted: Wednesday, August 23, 2006
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- A newly formed group called Iowans Concerned About Judges is asking about 80 judges who are up for retention this November to declare their positions on a number of controversial issues.
The group, made up of a handful of conservative organizations, contends Iowans have a right to know how judges feel about issues including same-sex marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, eminent domain and displaying the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and schools.
The five-page judicial questionnaire, containing 15 questions, was e-mailed this month to judges who are up for retention. The two-week deadline to return the form is Thursday.
Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, said voters want to be informed when deciding whether to retain judges. Part of their concern, he said, is that judicial activism has crept into the American judiciary. The questionnaire aims to bring accountability, he added.
"For us to vote for that powerful and influential of ruler, without good information, it's citizen malpractice," said Hurley. His organization is part of Iowans Concerned About Judges along with the Iowa Christian Alliance, Concerned Women for America of Iowa, Professional Educators of Iowa and Focus on the Family.
In Iowa, judges are appointed through a merit-selection process that was approved by voters in the 1960s. Judges in Iowa do not face an opponent in retention elections, but instead voters decide whether to keep a judge in office. Supreme court judges are up for retention every eight years, while court of appeals and district court judges are up every six years.
Drake University politics professor Rachel Paine Caufield, a consultant for the American Judicature Society's Hunter Center for Judicial Selection, said the questionnaire doesn't tap into a judge's understanding of Iowa law, but instead is "purely politically motivated."
"Basic respect for the judiciary would indicate that voters shouldn't want judges to respond to these questionnaires," she said. "If you want your courts to be fair and impartial ... then that requires some restraint on the part of judges themselves."
Hurley said the questionnaire states that the judges' responses indicate their "current views on issues, and do not constitute any pledge, promise or commitment, to reach any particular result in a case." He added that Iowa's Code of Judicial Conduct was recently changed to reflect a U.S. Supreme Court decision that banned restrictions on judicial candidates' ability to give their views on legal or political issues.
"Clearly, candidates for judicial office should now be able to express their views on disputed legal and political issues without fear of being sanctioned by judicial or ethics authorities," the questionnaire reads.
Hurley said Tuesday that he didn't have a tally of how many judges had responded to the questionnaire. If many refuse to respond, he said "Iowa voters will have to decide if they want to live under a judiciary that treats them contemptuously by mandated voter ignorance."
If judges respond that they believe the state's judicial conduct canon continues to prohibit them from giving their views, Hurley said there could be a legal challenge to the ethics code for violating the First Amendment.
Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Louis A. Lavorato agreed that judges have a right to announce their position on an issue, but he cautioned them to keep in mind that their impartiality may be called into question and that they may have to decline cases involving those issues.
"For this reason, the public should be wary of voting for a judge who promises to rule a certain way," Lavorato said in a statement. "In our system of government, we expect judges to rule according to the law regardless of their personal views. We also expect them to make decisions free of political intimidation and influence."
Lavorato suggests that if voters want to learn about judges who will appear on the retention ballot, they should study the judicial evaluation conducted by the Iowa State Bar Association. The evaluation, which rates judges on professional qualifications and skills, will be available in October.
On the Net:
Iowans Concerned About Judges: http://www.iowansconcernedaboutjudges.com/
American Judicature Society: http://www.ajs.org/
Iowa Courts: http://www.judicial.state.ia.us
The group, made up of a handful of conservative organizations, contends Iowans have a right to know how judges feel about issues including same-sex marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, eminent domain and displaying the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and schools.
The five-page judicial questionnaire, containing 15 questions, was e-mailed this month to judges who are up for retention. The two-week deadline to return the form is Thursday.
Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, said voters want to be informed when deciding whether to retain judges. Part of their concern, he said, is that judicial activism has crept into the American judiciary. The questionnaire aims to bring accountability, he added.
"For us to vote for that powerful and influential of ruler, without good information, it's citizen malpractice," said Hurley. His organization is part of Iowans Concerned About Judges along with the Iowa Christian Alliance, Concerned Women for America of Iowa, Professional Educators of Iowa and Focus on the Family.
In Iowa, judges are appointed through a merit-selection process that was approved by voters in the 1960s. Judges in Iowa do not face an opponent in retention elections, but instead voters decide whether to keep a judge in office. Supreme court judges are up for retention every eight years, while court of appeals and district court judges are up every six years.
Drake University politics professor Rachel Paine Caufield, a consultant for the American Judicature Society's Hunter Center for Judicial Selection, said the questionnaire doesn't tap into a judge's understanding of Iowa law, but instead is "purely politically motivated."
"Basic respect for the judiciary would indicate that voters shouldn't want judges to respond to these questionnaires," she said. "If you want your courts to be fair and impartial ... then that requires some restraint on the part of judges themselves."
Hurley said the questionnaire states that the judges' responses indicate their "current views on issues, and do not constitute any pledge, promise or commitment, to reach any particular result in a case." He added that Iowa's Code of Judicial Conduct was recently changed to reflect a U.S. Supreme Court decision that banned restrictions on judicial candidates' ability to give their views on legal or political issues.
"Clearly, candidates for judicial office should now be able to express their views on disputed legal and political issues without fear of being sanctioned by judicial or ethics authorities," the questionnaire reads.
Hurley said Tuesday that he didn't have a tally of how many judges had responded to the questionnaire. If many refuse to respond, he said "Iowa voters will have to decide if they want to live under a judiciary that treats them contemptuously by mandated voter ignorance."
If judges respond that they believe the state's judicial conduct canon continues to prohibit them from giving their views, Hurley said there could be a legal challenge to the ethics code for violating the First Amendment.
Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Louis A. Lavorato agreed that judges have a right to announce their position on an issue, but he cautioned them to keep in mind that their impartiality may be called into question and that they may have to decline cases involving those issues.
"For this reason, the public should be wary of voting for a judge who promises to rule a certain way," Lavorato said in a statement. "In our system of government, we expect judges to rule according to the law regardless of their personal views. We also expect them to make decisions free of political intimidation and influence."
Lavorato suggests that if voters want to learn about judges who will appear on the retention ballot, they should study the judicial evaluation conducted by the Iowa State Bar Association. The evaluation, which rates judges on professional qualifications and skills, will be available in October.
On the Net:
Iowans Concerned About Judges: http://www.iowansconcernedaboutjudges.com/
American Judicature Society: http://www.ajs.org/
Iowa Courts: http://www.judicial.state.ia.us
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 12 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
jane wrote on Sep 25, 2007 8:57 PM:
petertvpm wrote on Apr 17, 2007 2:01 PM:
Adam wrote on Sep 23, 2006 5:45 PM:
Judge K wrote on Aug 30, 2006 9:33 AM:
Destardi wrote on Aug 24, 2006 5:04 AM: