Selection Snapshots

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.

According to campaign finance filings, the group formed to support the retention of three justices on the November ballot--Defend Justice from Politics--has raised and spent $1.45 million. The justices themselves have raised $1.36 million.

The state chamber plans to publicize its recently completed ratings of supreme court justices standing for retention, based on their rulings in business cases.

A pro-business group known as the Montana Growth Network funded a radio ad attacking a supreme court candidate’s position on the death penalty. The candidate asked his opponent to denounce the ad, as the code of judicial conduct recommends when third parties make false statements about candidates, but she responded that she would need to do extensive research to determine the ad’s factuality.