Iowa ousts three Supreme Court justices, sets stage for push to overturn gay marriage
Wednesday, November 03, 2010 at 11:36 am
Now that Iowans have voted to oust three state Supreme Court justices, conservatives are beginning to wonder if they have the momentum to push to overturn the court’s 2009 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.
It was marriage that inspired the campaign to oust the judges, and it was prominent national anti-gay organizations that bankrolled the effort. Led by Mississippi-based American Family Association, the effort was aided by groups such as Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council, Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, Georgia-based Faith & Freedom Coalition and New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage.
The organizations spent more than $1 million to oust the judges, with the campaign culminating in a 20-city bus tour across Iowa urging voters to kick the judges off the bench. Local leaders of the effort said rejecting the judges would set the stage for the fight over gay marriage and gay rights in Iowa and across the country.
Bob Vander Plaats, a former Republican gubernatorial candidate acted as spokesman for the campaign, told Radio Iowa just before midnight Tuesday that “history’s being made.”
“Iowans who have a great level of common sense and a measured response, the more they learned about this issue, the more they understood about this issue, the more they were willing to vote no because they saw an activist court that was wanted to make law from the bench and they knew that wasn’t their role,” he said. “Their voice was never heard on the same-sex marriage issue.”
Vander Plaats said later that, “the rest of the country is going to hear our voice.”
Craig Robinson, a former political director of the Republican Party of Iowa, wrote on his blog Tuesday that the vote may be enough to “motivate complacent legislators to finally get on board with a marriage amendment, and maybe even go around Mike Gronstal to do so.”
Gronstal, the Democratic leader in the state Senate, has repeatedly vowed to never allow a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage to come up for a vote. But with Republicans in control of the Iowa House, and a much smaller Democratic advantage in the state Senate, marriage may become a big issue during the 2011 session. During the 2010 session, advocates for an amendment came just five votes shy of forcing a vote on marriage over Gronstal’s objections.
Carolyn Jenison, executive director of the LGBT-rights group One Iowa, said the “courageous justices who recognized the freedom to marry in Iowa fell victim to a perfect storm of electoral discontent and out-of-state special interest money.”
“In the months and weeks ahead we can expect renewed attempts to overturn the freedom to marry and write discrimination into the Iowa Constitution,” she said in a statement to supporters. “It will take a concerted and collective effort on the part of pro-equality Iowans to respond to these attacks and defend on our liberties. We hope you’ll join us.”
In a joint statement, Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Associate Justices Michael Streit and David Baker thanked the Iowans who supported them for another term.
“Your support shows that many Iowans value fair and impartial courts,” the statement said. “We also want to acknowledge and thank all the Iowans, from across the political spectrum and from different walks of life, who worked tirelessly over the past few months to defend Iowa’s high-caliber court system against an unprecedented attack by out-of-state special interest groups.”
Despite the ouster of the judges, however, same-sex marriage will continue to be legal in Iowa, and outgoing Democratic Gov. Chet Culver has the authority to appoint the judges’ successors.
“While the full implications of these election results remain to be seen, one thing remains the same,” Jenison said. “The freedom to marry in Iowa remains intact.”
Jason Hancock is the editor of the Iowa Independent.
1 Comment
Comment posted November 4, 2010 @ 2:09 am
The measure of the good behavior of judges lies in their adherence to the law, not the fickle winds of partisanship. The removal of these judges for partisan political reasons rejects the designs of the Founding Fathers. While removal from the bench is an important part of the checks and balances, it is intended to redress judicial misbehavior, not for partisan manipulation of the courts.
“Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
The Federalist Papers:
“The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”
“The members of the legislature will rarely be chosen with a view to those qualifications which fit men for the stations of judges; and as, on this account, there will be great reason to apprehend all the ill consequences of defective information, so, on account of the natural propensity of such bodies to party divisions, there will be no less reason to fear that the pestilential breath of faction may poison the fountains of justice. The habit of being continually marshalled on opposite sides will be too apt to stifle the voice both of law and of equity.”
“These considerations teach us to applaud the wisdom of those States who have committed the judicial power, in the last resort, not to a part of the legislature, but to distinct and independent bodies of men.”
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.







