HerringLaw: Civil Rights & Discrimination Law in Iowa

Consequences of the Judicial Retention vote next Tuesday

I've been a lawyer for over 30 years and served on a district judicial nominating commission.  I was wondering what would happen if a justice/judge were to lose the retention vote, much less the over 70 at stake when people are being told to “throw the bums out”.  The fact is, it won’t be pretty.  People will be hurt if there's a number of judges not retained.  Reading quickly through the 1962 Constitutional Amendment that changed the election system to a retention system and Chapter 46 of the Iowa Code, and not looking at any case law, this is the way it seems to me it will go:

In order to be retained, the judge needs to have more ‘yes’ votes than ‘no’ votes.  If they do not get enough, they are not retained and in about two-three weeks a notification of the pending vacancy is given to the judicial nominating commission [state or district] [the notice of pending vacancy has to be made within 120 days from when it becomes apparent there will be a vacancy.]  Since the non-retained judge ends his/her term on January 1st following the election, that notice could be made relatively soon.

Once notice is given, the nominating commission has to hold its first meeting in 10 days upon 5 days notice.  The Commission has 60 days to certify its nominees to the Governor who then is able to appoint one from the list given.  The Governor has 30 days to make that appointment.

In that 60 days, the people who submit their applications will need appropriate time to do so.  Usually there are about 20-30 applicants and a commission has to sift through multiple pages of all their applications and, in some cases, interview the applicants and vote on them.  Then the Commission certifies its nomination list to the Governor for selection and appointment within 30 days.

The new judge will need time to shut down his/her law practice [hopefully they are good enough lawyers to have a thriving practice], be sworn in and start work.

In the mean time, the court administrators will have to work with the out-going judge[s] to either shift the workload to other judges or the new judge, or to process the cases as quickly as possible.  In some cases, that may be difficult if there are motions or trials coming up in November-December-January where the judge has been heavily involved.  And each judicial decision by the out-going judge is subject to post-trial motions and appeals.  

For the new judge, he/she will have to shut down the practice of law, be sworn in and start work, without much opportunity for training or being brought up to speed on internal court procedures.

The lawyers, judges and court personnel in the system will be just fine.  They’ll do their job.  But people who are dealing with the courts, the juveniles, accused, small claims parties, plaintiffs, defendants, people trying to become divorced, may have to make do with what they are given for at least the next few or many months.  The courts are already stretched by budget constraints and this will complicate things further

Obviously, I believe people should vote to retain the judges and justices on the ballot.  But even if you choose not to, don't just vote to wipe out the judiciary.  Make your decision based on what you know about or think about a particular judge.  

[There's a good discussion of this in today's Des Moines Register in an article by Grant Schulte]

A helpful website for conversions & a GREAT application too

I was trying to convert volumes and came across this which deals with all sorts of conversions that might be needed:  http://www.asknumbers.com/

There is also a great application for your iPhone or iPad called AppBoxPro.  It has all sorts of features:  alarm clock, date calculator, currency and loan calculators, translators, unit calculator, flashlight.  It's truly essential.  One of the best 99 cents I've spent.

Dangers of Judicial Elections & Funding of Judge's campaigns

I have just spent the past four or five days in Texas, in the Hill Country, and it really brought home to me why elections of judges are not what Iowa should return to.

Several judges in Texas had radio ads or signage asking people to vote for them.  One radio ad named several judges and said that doctors supported them and ‘prescribed’ their election to the bench.  There wasn’t any information about these candidates that was useful in deciding whether they were worthy of the office.  And why would a group of doctors support these judges?  Could it have to do with getting friendly judges who will toss even the most justified malpractice case?

A major problem with returning to the electoral system for the naming of judges is that campaigns are expensive, even if they ‘only’ involve yard signs and radio ads. Not all money going into campaign coffers is identified or public, although it would be made known to the recipient of course.  Second, once you have judges standing for election, monied interests can put money into a campaign and they will expect to get something for it.  No one gives away money without expecting a return of some type.

Some might say this return to an elected judiciary is not possible.  But, a well-financed, out-of-state funded campaign against the retention of judges for their decision in one case can affect the whole system.  People who might make fine judges won’t apply [or run] because it’s not worth the headache or financial turmoil involved.  Judges who are trying to decide a case may not decide the case based on the facts of the case and the applicable law, but with an eye to whether some other well-funded, out-of-state group will also campaign against them.  

 

Vote on November 2nd to retain the Justices of the Supreme Court and other judges on the ballot.

 

Texas ad:

Vote YES to retain Justices on the Iowa Supreme Court

In Iowa, indeed, throughout the US, most people would say that they don't want judges roiled in politics or suborned by money.  Most people instinctively understand that our country's founders devised the judiciary as a check upon the monied interests and political elites;  that judges would apply the law without favor to everyone coming before them, rich or poor, connected or not.  

When Iowa went to the merit selection system of appointing judges, it did so to curtail the adverse affects of money and politics upon the judicial system.  And since then, whether a Democrat or a Republican has been Governor, the system has worked as it should.  Unlike attorneys of some other states, I can say that money doesn't buy favor in court for the wealthy and that political connections will not shield you from justice in Iowa.  I might not agree with many or all of the decisions our courts have rendered, but I do know each judge does his or her best to apply the law to the facts before the court.

But now, with the only complaint being the Iowa Supreme Court's decision in one case, out-of-state money is coming in to apply political pressure on the Court and, ultimately, to bring money and pressure into the judicial system in Iowa for the future.

Whether a judge should be retained should not be decided by one's view of a single decision.  It should be the result of a broad view of a judge's fulfillment of his or her duty in all the cases coming before the court, it should result from a judge's clear dereliction of duty or inability to serve.

I do not know of any serious reason not to retain any of the judges now on the ballot.  And I do not want any outside Iowa money or political influences (or even money and influence within Iowa, for that matter) to taint what is our independent judiciary.  I voted early and voted YES to retain the judges on my ballot.  None of them - even if they have ruled against me and my clients in the past - has done so out of venality or for inappropriate reasons.   I can question why a decision was made in a case, but not how - Iowa judges rule as best they can within the terms of their oath of office, to render justice impartially.  I do not want to see our system become one where judges have to raise money and campaign for their retention because some case offended someone's views or  financial interest.

Turn over the ballet when you vote and vote YES for our judges and our judicial system.

 

Charlie Wittmack does the World Tri & his iPhone

Charlie Wittmack is an attorney in Des Moines who has climbed Mt. Everest and is now undertaking the World Tri -- bike/run/swim around the world = he swam the English Channel and is biking across Europe and Asia and will end up climbing up Mt. Everest -- story in the DMR today told of his recent accident in Kazakhstan [no major injuries] and then -

"My bicycle suffered minor mechanical and cosmetic damage but is repairable. My jersey and pants were ripped and my iPhone was crushed, but somehow remains operational," he said.

http://tinyurl.com/23dsmw5