More

Iowa Judges Sacked Over Gay Marriage Ruling

DAVID PITT and MICHAEL J. CRUMB   11/ 3/10 10:01 PM ET   AP

Iowa Gay Marriage

DES MOINES, Iowa — Iowa Supreme Court rulings will be slowed after a contentious campaign persuaded voters to oust three justices, who supported a decision legalizing gay marriage, a court official said Wednesday.

Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit were voted off the bench in Tuesday's election, creating multiple vacancies on the court for the first time since its inception.

The three were among seven justices who unanimously decided last year that an Iowa law restricting marriage to a man and a woman violated the state's constitution. They will leave at the end of the year.

There are likely to be delays in issuing rulings until the vacancies are filled, said state court administrator David Boyd.

"Four people cannot produce the same number of opinions that seven can produce," Boyd said. "The court will be able to function, however at a much slower pace."

Tuesday was the first time Iowa voters removed a Supreme Court justice since the current system began in 1962.

Gay marriage foes spent an estimated $1 million on the campaign to oust the judges, who chose not to raise money or campaign themselves. But a group of former governors, lawyers and judges formed Fair Courts For Us to support them, saying Iowa's independent judiciary was at risk if a one-issue campaign succeeded in removing the justices.

"What I want Iowans to know is that our courtrooms need to be the safest place for parties to go to work out their differences and disputes," said Dan Moore, the group's co-chairman. "They need to know courts will be fair and impartial and decisions won't be based on fear and popularity."

Opponents of gay marriage emboldened by the election's outcome, however, said they plan to press Republicans who took over the governor's office and the state House to work toward a ban.

"We held a court in check, but now we want action from the governor's office and action from the Legislature," said Bob Vander Plaats, a Sioux City businessman and former Republican candidate for governor who led the effort to remove the justices.

Once the secretary of state certifies election results, which must be done by Nov. 29, the state's 15-member judicial nominating commission will have 60 days to give the names of three nominees to the governor for each Supreme Court vacancy. The governor then will have 30 days to make appointments.

The timeline for filling the vacancies makes it virtually impossible for Gov. Chet Culver to be able to fill them before he leaves office Jan. 14. He was defeated by former Republican Gov. Terry Branstad in Tuesday's election.

"Since this is unprecedented it's obviously leaving everybody a little on the confused side," said Culver spokesman Jim Flansburg. "There's a right way to do things and a wrong way and that's what we're reviewing."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
DES MOINES, Iowa — Iowa Supreme Court rulings will be slowed after a contentious campaign persuaded voters to oust three justices, who supported a decision legalizing gay marriage, a court offic...
DES MOINES, Iowa — Iowa Supreme Court rulings will be slowed after a contentious campaign persuaded voters to oust three justices, who supported a decision legalizing gay marriage, a court offic...
Filed by Nico Pitney  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 575
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (11 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rachael Crawley
Canadian and proud
12:43 PM on 11/07/2010
This is frightening. There is no legal basis for the removal of gay marriage. Any judge who gets rid of it is doing it to satisfy their own bigotry.

And for people who think same-sex marriage should be on a ballot, you are WRONG. Minority rights should never be left in the hands of the majority. Look at California and Maine- so many people given false hope, only to have it taken away. It's cruel. Whatever happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave, equal rights to all, and the freedom of the individual?

Same-sex marriage has no real effect on those who do not practice it (if they don't want any effect), and can be beneficial to many organizations and individuals outside of the couples marrying. It's sad how these issues always seem to take one step forward and two steps back.
10:54 AM on 11/07/2010
The Iowa judges were ousted due to their abuse of power. In other words, the only way for these Iowa judges to achieve their political end, which they obviously desired, was to broaden the "purposes" of the marriage into something that would not inherently exclude same-sex couples.

They unilaterally changed the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, and then used that as justification for ordering a change in the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

This is circular reasoning and circular law-making.
11:50 PM on 11/04/2010
Well, what do you expect from people who are so stupid they wrote and ratified a Constitution that guaranteed a right to gay marriage -- and they didn't even realize that they'd done it?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbmetzger
10:10 PM on 11/04/2010
Iowa Voters Oust Judges Who Upheld Gay Marriage
Three Iowa Supreme Court Justices that struck down the state's ban on gay marriage have been voted out of office. Iowa supreme court justices go serve eight year terms, after which they can be retained or dismissed by a majority of voters. http://www.newslook.com/videos/263482-iowa-voters-oust-judges-who-upheld-gay-marriage?autoplay=true
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Judge H. Lee Sarokin
Retired after serving 17 years on the federal cour
12:02 PM on 11/04/2010
My worst fears and predictions have come true:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/the-danger-of-ousting-jud_b_739584.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:02 PM on 11/04/2010
Judge Sarokin: You hit the nail squarely on the head, unfortunately. I was floored when I saw the election results. I worked in law enforcement for quite a few years, and I thought judges were typically retained unless there was evidence of mental impairment or they were convicted of breaking the law themselves. I had seen the attack ads calling them activist judges (based on a 7-0 vote?) and urging people to vote no, but I mistakenly believed that Iowans would never fall for that sort of thing. For anyone who understands the value of judicial independence, it was a sad day.
08:36 PM on 11/03/2010
I think the reason that the people of Iowa are so mad is that unlike California, we had no choice to vote on this matter. It was rammed down our throats by seven people that had the say for the whole state.
09:12 PM on 11/03/2010
And I'm curious to see how thoroughly WRECKED your life has become since the gay marriage ruling came down. How devasted you must be and how, exactly, society has imploded since that came to pass.

Please. Do tell us.

How horrible has your once happy, blessed, and enriched personal existence has now become bereft of fulfillment, wasted and forsaken now that gays can get married.

Because it MUST be that big of a deal. I can see the miasma of horribleness rising off the plains of Iowa now, so ruined has the state become since allowing the gays to marry. Such a travesty, this.

But PLEASE. Do tell us. How bad this must be that you had to partake in firing three judges who were simply trying to make sure everyone was treated equally. Feel free.
09:45 PM on 11/03/2010
My life in Iowa is just fine… thank-you. As for gays being allowed to marry, I really it really doesn’t bother me. I don’t personally believe in it but I’m also not going to condone someone that does. My problem is I interpret a democracy as the will of the people. That is what makes this country great. Not having the option to voice your opinion and have the whole state of Iowa abide to 7 peoples interpretation of the law is a shame. Why vote anyway? We can let the courts decide everything for us. Then where will we be.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhilipB
10:28 PM on 11/03/2010
Fanned for that, Leanne.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhilipB
10:40 PM on 11/03/2010
Hi!
There is no "will of the people". We do not have a direct democracy, but a constitutional Republic. The courts are equal, of no lesser stature. Some to not understand this, but for study, I would recommend the writings of Adams, Madison and others in the Federalist papers. The judges do have the say for the whole state. That is how it works.
This protects you, personally. You should consider that where one group is set outside equal protections of the constitution and due process, then everyone is at risk.
Along with a dire need for basic understanding of how our Republic operates, many are confused with the civil contract of marriage, equating it with personal fantasies and religious expectations, when in fact it is a cut and dried civil legal contract of between two persons of presumed equality, with obligations and benefits extending during the marriage and beyond with inheritance, apportionment, child support and more.
I hope that clarifies things for you.
Best to you,
06:48 PM on 11/03/2010
Interesting how a law passed by the Dems and Clinton 16 years ago is now considered by the Left to be a hate-law (DADT).

Clinton also signed DOMA.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Married Gay Pagan Man
07:15 PM on 11/03/2010
I thought both of them were hate laws when they were passed. I agree that Clinton should have had the spine to veto them but at least in the case of DOMA he was trying to prevent an amendment to the US Constitution banning same-sex marriage being passed.
12:38 AM on 11/05/2010
What? Do some reading, please. Both policies were passed as compromises.
Amidst outrage from Congress, the Joint Chief of Staff, and the public DADT was implemented as a compromise to avoid an even more restrictive policy that would have banned gays and lesbians from serving altogether.

DOMA was a compromise with the *Republican* congress of '96 in order to avoid a constitutional amendment, which would have been much harder to repeal.

In both cases, Clinton has recently explained how he supported the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the military, and how his stance on same-sex marriage has evolved. Furthermore, the public overwhelming opposes DADT now.
06:45 PM on 11/03/2010
Power to the people!

Why are liberals afraid when the people vote on moral issues?
Why should unelected judges "choose" what morality is? (abortion, etc)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Married Gay Pagan Man
08:16 PM on 11/03/2010
Why should you tell "choose" what my civil rights will and won't be?
10:24 PM on 11/03/2010
The judges don't choose what "morality" is. They decide what is constitutional. Clearly, they found that a same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional. Their job is to make sure that skewed majority perceptions of morality do not impinge upon the rights afforded to all people by the constitution and previous, relevant legal decisions. Duh. I could point out the periods in history in which the majority of "the people" chose to oppress the minority of "the people", but I feel like it's pretty obvious. Go take a civics course.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhilipB
10:42 PM on 11/03/2010
Thank you.
been2there
Facts have a liberal bias.
06:28 PM on 11/03/2010
Gee, fairness is not a moral value? Come on, people!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Married Gay Pagan Man
06:13 PM on 11/06/2010
In some states, it apparently isn't--Iowa for one.
05:58 PM on 11/03/2010
If it is like the California election where several justices (the Bird court) were removed from office then it just goes to show that powerful interests can use a wedge issue to remove justices that they do not like. Our court has never been the same. But the alternative to elections is to have a Supreme Court dominated by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. Take your pick.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Big Game Hunter
05:52 PM on 11/03/2010
If this were an option in the 50s, Earl Warren would have been removed immediately after Brown v. Board. It was an incredibly unpopular decision that reversed the laws of a number of states, and went against the "will of the people". But you know what? It was the RIGHT ruling.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
slaxx
06:22 PM on 11/03/2010
It was also the constitutional thing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eric8869
05:43 PM on 11/03/2010
Hooray IOWA was looking more progressive than California. Now you just look like bigots that people on the east and west coasts fly over. CONGRATS!
05:35 PM on 11/03/2010
Yes, Iowa. Vote in reactionairies like yourselves to be your judges. That's smart. See what sort of justice you will get.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bgofca
05:27 PM on 11/03/2010
the right isn't happy with an impartial court. they are only happy when they have the court stacked with people with their self righteous view.
heaven protect us from "religious people"