The Sept. 24 NYT is suggesting that the Iowa retention elections cannot be used only to eliminate “unfit judges.” Of course a judge who commits a felony or takes a bribe can be removed from office by other means. What is the point of an election if the New York Times tells Iowa voters they are not allowed to exercise their own judgment? To the NYT, the idea the Iowa Constitution requires same-sex marriage is not an outrageous judicial abuse of power. But the voters of Iowa are entitled to their own opinion. The Iowa Constitution includes judicial retention elections, which gives voters a say over who will judge them and the people's constitution. NOMs Brian Brown speaks out:
From the NYT:
“Brian S. Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which has spent $230,000 on television ads criticizing the Iowa judges, said he understood that removing the three judges would not change the same-sex marriage ruling. (It was a unanimous ruling by the state’s seven justices.) But Mr. Brown said he hoped the judges’ ouster would help prevent similar rulings elsewhere by making judges around the nation aware that their jobs are on the line.
“It sends a powerful message,” he said, “That if justices go outside the bounds of their oaths, if the justices go outside the bounds of the U.S. and state constitutions they’re going to be held accountable.”
Bob Vander Plaats, who made opposition to same-sex marriage a centerpiece of his unsuccessful run for governor in Iowa, is leading the ouster campaign on behalf of the political arm of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian organization based in Tupelo, Miss.
“My bigger fear isn’t about injecting politics into judicial retention elections. The bigger fear is that we don’t hold them in check,” he said, warning that gun and property rights could be at risk.”