The Politics of Retention Elections in Iowa
July 20, 2010
Retention elections, when combined with “merit” selection, are supposed to remove the stench of “politics” from the process of choosing and approving judges – or so we are assured by Hedge Fund Titans for a Non-Democratic Judiciary (aka Justice at Stake). But that only works when the people fulfill the role the “merit” selection crowd has assigned them: lemmings dutifully willing to rubber stamp the decisions made by elite lawyers who typically hold the privileged position of choosing judges behind closed doors.
But a funny thing happened in Iowa several years ago – the people revolted! After wading into the same-sex marriage morass with a controversial decision, Judge Jeffrey Neary faced the prospect of losing to a “Vote No” protest. So what did Judge Neary do? He started campaigning like Huey Long! According to a Des Moines Register story (h/t GavelGrab), Judge Neary hit up family members for campaign funds, recruited two local legal heavyweights to shill for him to voters and even pressed the flesh in the basement of the Orange City Pizza Ranch.
So much for the myth that retention elections remove politics from the judicial process.
Ultimately, Judge Neary was able to hold onto his seat – as 99% of judges running in retention elections do. He beat his opponent – “no” – by 59% to 41%. After Judge Neary survived his close call, one local activist summed up the problem with retention elections – and “merit” selection in general:
“At this point, there’s no accountability in the system. Until the judges recognize that it [losing] could happen, they apparently don’t give a rip – what people think, what the Constitution says, what the intent of the lawmaker was.”