Iowa Reveals the Crumbling Arguments Behind “Merit” Selection
October 6, 2010
The retention elections of three Iowa Supreme Court justices have become a fascinating example not just of how determined voters are to remove judges that voters believe are activists and have exceed their authority, but also of how quickly the arguments behind “merit” selection crumble when confronted by citizens determined to hold their public servants on the bench accountable.
Crumbling Argument 1: “Merit” selection takes the politics out of judicial selection.
So far in Iowa, at least four groups (two pro-removal and two anti-removal) are fighting it out to win voters over to their cause – complete with events, ads and all the trappings of modern political campaigns. Sure sounds like politics to me. Yesterday, according to a Des Moines Register report, Malia Reddick of the American Judicature Society (another pro-“merit” selection group on the George Soros dole) admitted the obvious: “merit selection does not remove politics and special interest[s] from the process…”
Crumbling Argument 2: “Merit” selection eliminates special interest influence.
Because of the spotlight on these retention elections, Iowans are finally learning the truth about who really controls judicial selection in the state. A group called Iowans for Fair and Impartial Courts has been sponsoring events warning of dire consequences if voters remove any of the justices up for retention. According to the Register, the group is “backed by the state bar association.” Interesting.
Even more interesting: In Iowa, members of the state bar get to decide who gets to sit on the judicial nominating commission. In other words, a special interest (the Iowa Bar) is fighting to maintain its current power to hand-pick some of Iowa’s most powerful public servants.
Crumbling Argument 3: “Merit” selection want voters to have a say in who sits on the court.
As I’ve detailed in previous posts, “merit” selection proponents are only willing to stand up for retention elections if voters rubber stamp the judges that have been chosen for them.
The battle in Iowa has revealed the truth behind “merit” selection: The entire system is a tool to keep lawyer-dominated special interests in control of our courts and to prevent citizens from holding their judges accountable when they act like legislators.
Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: Iowa, Judicial Elections
2 Responses to “Iowa Reveals the Crumbling Arguments Behind “Merit” Selection”
I have tried to “add fuel to the fire” and educate the Iowa electorate about what their lawyers and judges are “getting away with”
by submitting to the Des Moines Register the following two links .
These links contain HALT’S Report Cards on the 50 state “fox guarding the chicken house:” attorney and judge “discipline”
The Report Cards for Iowa ranks it’s attorney/judge “discipline” process as one of the worst in America, Hopefully the Register will do a good “in the public interest” story on this disgrace.
1. Attorney Discipline Report Cards http://www.halt.org/reform_projects/lawyer_accountability/report_card_2006/
2 Judicial Integrity Report Cards http://www.halt.org/jip/2008_jarc/
Ivan L Fail
Sparta, Missouri
Phone 417-634-0173
ilf@centurytel.net
[...] is that “too much money in judicial elections creates the ‘appearance’ of impropriety.” (Here, I put the lie to these [...]