News & Updates

Addressing efforts to oust Justice David Wiggins from his seat on Iowa's high court because of an unpopular decision, the O’Connor Advisory Committee Chair, Justice Ruth V. McGregor, has written an op-ed about how special interest groups are "asking Iowa’s voters to disregard the fundamental principles of a state justice system that has served Iowa well."

An ad sponsored by the Washington, D.C.-based Judicial Crisis Network criticizes a supreme court candidate for volunteering to provide free legal representation to individuals suspected of terrorism. Spending on the ad is expected to top $1 million.

The ACLU of Indiana filed a constitutional challenge to the process for electing superior court judges in Marion County. Under a system that may be unique, voters in each of the major party primaries cast ballots for half of the judicial seats to be filled. This ensures partisan balance on the bench, but it also makes the general election a mere formality.

Four justices who served with former chief justice Roy Moore are among 10 current and former justices of both parties who have endorsed his opponent in Moore’s bid to be chief justice again. He was removed from the court in 2003 for ignoring a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments display from the state judicial building.

Data collected by the judicial selection commission indicates that interest in applying for a state court judgeship has declined over the years. The most striking example of this is that, while 24 attorneys applied for a supreme court vacancy in 2003, only seven did so in 2011 and only nine applied in 2012.

In 2004, challenger Will T. Scott defeated incumbent justice Janet Stumbo. In 2012, Stumbo is challenging Justice Scott to regain the seat. The judicial campaign conduct committee has labeled ads by both candidates misleading, with at least one ad appearing to be designed to appeal to racial prejudice.

Responding to the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council’s rating of justices standing for retention based on their decisions in civil liability cases, a group known as “Yes for Fair and Impartial Judges” mounted an educational campaign to encourage voters to consider the justices’ integrity, fairness, and impartiality.

What began two years ago, with a group's successful ousting of three Iowa Supreme Court Justices who ruled in favor of allowing same-sex marriage, has escalated into a movement to rid state courts of justices who have made undesirable rulings. Instead of pushing to remove justices for misconduct or incompetence, groups are doing so because of disagreements over particular decisions.

On November 6th, Arizona citizens will be voting on Proposition 115, which aims to modify Arizona's merit selection system by giving the governor more power over the judicial nomination process. Justice Ruth V. McGregor and Judge James A. Soto warn against this ballot proposition, stating that it will "undermine the present merit-selection system for selecting judges and let politicians control the judicial selection process."

According to the Des Moines Register, experts predict that more than $400,000 will be spent in Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins’ retention election. With so much money injected into what is intended to be an apolitical process, backers of the courts worry that the judicial system will become tied to popular political opinion and that courts and judges may therefore be afraid to decide certain issues for fear of an electoral backlash driven by special interests.

Justice John Pelander has taken the unusual step of forming a campaign committee to support his retention, in the face of opposition from conservative groups based on a recent decision.

Incumbent justice Robert Cupp asked the state Republican Party to pull an ad describing his election opponent as sympathetic to rapists based on his past opinions as a court of appeals judge.

A website—VoteForJudges.org—is providing Cook County voters with nonpartisan judicial recommendations from area bar groups. Fifty-seven Cook County judges are standing for retention this November.

In the sole supreme court race, a super PAC formed by Republican activists is supporting the challenger. Thirty-nine primarily Democratic lawyers and judges around the state decried the influx of outside money into judicial elections.

A former governor and a former supreme court justice oppose a measure on the November ballot that would give the legislature the same authority as the supreme court to make rules governing the administration of all state courts.

Conservative groups have mounted a loosely organized effort to oppose the retention of Justice John Pelander because of his vote in a 3-2 ruling that allows Proposition 121 to appear on the November ballot.

According to a recent poll, 43 percent of Iowans would vote “no” on Justice David Wiggins’ retention, while 37 percent would vote “yes.”

Justice Stephen David has opted to actively campaign for his retention, in response to a Tea Party-based challenge based on his vote in a 2011 case. According to David's campaign website, judges "don't have the luxury of taking a poll to find out which way they should rule on thorny issues" but must rule based on the facts and the law.

With less than a month until the November elections, a federal judge struck down the state’s limits on campaign contributions, finding that existing limits prevent candidates from mounting effective campaigns. The case was brought by conservative activists, corporations, and Republican groups.

Challengers to two incumbent supreme court justices questioned their campaign financing practices. One of the challengers promised to recuse himself from cases involving contributors, while the other has raised no money.