Thursday, we attended the first Iowa stop for the Family Research Council / Concerned Women For America (CWA) national bus tour promoting values voting — the term given to right to life, religious freedom, marriage and the range issues important to the nuclear family. The organizers are focusing on local elections on the tour rather than the presidential election. However we believe “values voting” will have a salutary effect for Donald Trump as people compare his positions and Hillary Clinton’s.
The location was the parking lot of Bettendorf’s Pleasant View Baptist Church. Organizers indicated that the decision to embark on the tour was made only a few weeks ago so there was little time for promotional advance work. About 20 local people were present including Jennifer Lane President of Scott County Republican Women and Dana Huss, a local activist who spoke on behalf of Concerned Women of America. The bus tour began in Washington DC and is heading to Washington state. We presume the route is designed to emphasize states faced with particular values laden matters, opportunities and vulnerabilities.
For example, mention was made of the intent to visit all counties in North Carolina. No doubt the focus there is in support of that state’s assertion of public safety standards and to protect privacy expectations under assault from the movement to impose requirements that the extreme minority of so-called transgender people be accommodated in their desire to use any bathroom or dressing room of their choosing. The ease with which sexual predators can exploit such “rights” has been demonstrated time and time again and North Carolina is right to assert its police powers to protect privacy and public safety.
Iowa was on the stop list for more than transit breaks. The ever important US Senate and US House races are on the ballot and the State Senate is in the balance for Republicans. There is the need to ensure a pro-family majority in the State House of Representatives as well. Information on the positions and voting records of contenders for the state and national legislatures can be obtained through pro-family organizations such as Iowa Faith and Freedom, Iowa Right to Life, The Family Leader, Concerned Women. One or all will post on-line voter guides and produce other publications in coming days.
A key opportunity exists in Iowa in that three of the Iowa Supreme Court judges who forced same-sex marriage on the state in 2009, by way of the Varnum decision, are up for a retention vote. Their imposition was in spite of 163 years of interpretation of Iowa’s Constitution, the undeniable intentions of the state’s founders, the document’s ratifiers, and the judgement of the state’s legislatures and its citizens in recent years. Reading a Wikipedia entry about the fallout from the decision:
Following the decision, groups opposed to same-sex marriage organized a campaign against Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, Justice David Baker, and Justice Michael Streit in their subsequent retention election, “with heavy support from out-of-state conservative and religious groups.”[19] All three were dismissed by Iowa voters on November 2, 2010, marking the first time an Iowa Supreme Court justice was not retained since the retention system was adopted for Iowa justices in 1962. . . .
In the November 6, 2012, election, voters retained Justice David Wiggins, the one judge who participated in Varnum whose retention was on the ballot, by a 54% to 46% margin.
Governor Branstad was able to appoint three replacements after that 2010 vote. That does not guarantee anything as Justice Cady who is one of the three up for retention this election, voted with all the others to force legal recognition of same-sex marriage, was originally appointed by Branstad. Hopefully Branstad will be discerning and do the best he can to protect Iowa family values with new judicial selections (for information on the process visit this link). It is the only chance we have and the three up for retention do not deserve to be retained given their atrocious disregard for precedent and the prerogatives of the legislature and the people.
Accordingly we and the Values Voters organizers encourage you to vote against retention of Associate Iowa Supreme Court justices Brent Appel and Daryl H. Hecht and Chief Justice Mark Cady, and please please remind all your friends to do the same.
It is easier to get a handle on the Iowa Supreme Court candidates because decisions indicative of judicial philosophy are often well reported. As for the other judges on the ballot (local) our approach for this election will be to vote against any not originally appointed by a Republican governor. The reasons relate to conservatism not party label but are hindered by the lack of readily available analysis. It is imperfect as to results, but as a reflection of the odds it is an effort to provide the opportunity to a presumptive more conservative governor than appointed them in the first place to do as well or better.
Judicial appointments are hip-deep in politics of one sort or another, within the bar or political party politics. Their appointments at that time are not devoid of presumptions or anticipation about the candidates judicial philosophy, it is just that the public is not made privy to it, it is largely behind the scenes. A political process of sorts got those standing for retention to where they are and it is entirely appropriate that politics and public experience and anticipation enters into their retention.
Judges are not obliged to stay in their positions contractually and we are not obliged to renew their contract when we think it better to allow another to fill the position. Voters can reject them for any reason or no reason including to inhibit their ascension to even more influential (dangerous) positions on a higher court. No judicial canon * can prevent them from advocating a judicial philosophy. We think they are all guilty of failure to campaign publicly and advertise their judicial operating philosophy, to ask for our vote and confidence, and that is reason enough if any is needed to reject them all.
However we will recommend operating on some gross presumptions that the appointing governor had used some diligence as to investigating the philosophy of the prospective appointees in the first place, including the then prospects feelings about separation of powers, adherence to the warp and woof of the U.S and Iowa Constitutions, the laws and regulations duly made, judicial humility, common sense honoring of the culture and about the intentions and expectations of those who recommended them. The differences in how an appointing liberal Democrat governor sees those values, and a Republican governor presumed disposed to the Republican platform on such matters, can be profound.
The following judges are up for retention locally in 2016 and are listed with their appointing governor. Voter (party) registration for each is inconclusive based on the data base in our possession. Who they give political campaign contributions to was an area checked at both the Iowa Election Campaign Disclosure Board web site and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) web site. The thresholds for inclusion in the respective data bases are $20 and $200. Readers can check and expand our work by searching the name of the judge using similar resources (internet and voter registration data bases available from county auditors . We will appreciate additional sources of information.
Iowa Court of Appeals Judges – Standing for Retention (statewide)
Richard H. Doyle – appointed by liberal Democrat Chet Culver – we oppose retention
Iowa donations – none found
FEC donations – none found
David R. Danilson — appointed by liberal Democrat Chet Culver – we oppose retention Iowa donations none found
FEC donations none found
Gayle Vogel — appointed by Republican Terry Branstad in 1996 – undecided – Iowa donations none found
FEC donations none found
==============================================================
7th District Court Judges – Standing for Retention
Mark J. Smith — appointed by Republican Terry Branstad — we oppose retention** Iowa donations none found
FEC donations none found
Stuart Palmer Werling
— appointed by Republican Branstad – undecided –
Iowa donations to Iowa Lawpac ID 6070 FEC donations none found
Paul L. Macek – appointed by liberal Democrat Chet Culver – we oppose retention
Iowa donations — Justice for All PAC ID 6046; local Dems — Lykam, Phelps Vilsack
FEC donations to Democrats Hutchinson, Braley, Obama/Biden
==============================================================
7th Associate District Court Judge – Standing for Retention
Phillip J. Tabor — appointed by liberal Democrat Chet Culver – we oppose retention Iowa donations — undetermined FEC donations — none found
We encourage readers elsewhere in Iowa and Illinois and other states to pay more attention to judicial elections and retention votes. Elsewhere in Iowa’s seven judicial districts basic information on those up for retention can be found by first apprising yourself as to who is on the ballot by visiting your local county auditor’s web site. Then do a web search of their name followed by Ballotpedia in the search window. An example is philip j tabor ballotpedia That should provide a brief bio and who appointed them and or when.
Next do a search of their name, hopefully with knowledge of their address in case it is necessary to distinguish it from similar names, at the state and federal campaign donation search sites: Iowa Election Campaign Disclosure Board and the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Spousal records may be observed at those sites if you know their name but it is auxiliary information.
Party registration is something that can be uncovered by either obtaining a reasonably current data disk from your county auditor (fees usually apply) or with the cooperation of your county party headquarters. Because Iowa judicial retention candidates may not live in the county you live in (judicial districts are multi-county) obtaining party registration, if any, may be more involved. Legislative candidate addresses are often available on auditor web-pages, that judicial candidates may not be is objectionable but the way it is. Expect to find that many are listed as “no party.”
Distribute the information as best you can including encouraging your local party officialdom to do the due diligence and distribute / make available the information.
Better yet, combine this basic information with trusted analysis from trial lawyers you know and their referrals revealing judicial opinions or decrees. We continue to hope for the time when a conservative watch-dog group can conveniently provide such information and recommendations.
Use a similar process for so-called non-partisan elections that may be on the ballot, — commissions, school board, municipal and others.
R Mall
*more reading here, note especially last paragraph
** Keep in mind that as explained elsewhere on this site, a commission presents usually three nominees from which the sitting governor picks one for the initial appointment. Branstad has had to pick from what he is presented with (the assiduousness of who he puts on the commission is another matter as well, and just who is available). Upon further input and reflection we oppose retention. Give Branstad another chance to improve on the stable of jurists.
Ed. Note. This post has been altered from the original which indicated support for retention of Branstad judicial appointees with the exception of Iowa Supreme Court Justice Cady, a Branstad nominee part of the Varnum decision infamy, who definitively deserves repudiation. Branstad should lead the way. All Branstad term appointments have been revised to “undecided” and one to oppose, based on further information and recommendations. Call it a consideration toward term limits or giving Branstad another shot at a better legacy. Judges have no one to blame but themselves. Want my vote — give me the reasons and ask for it.
