Welcome to Iowans Concerned About Judges

Home | Responses | Districts by County | Contact Judges (PDF) | Survey (PDF)

--PLEASE READ--

The law says judges CAN answer surveys like the one here. See the U.S. Supreme Court case Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002).

To stop a judge from answering is illegal--an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment free speech rights--and would be "state-imposed voter ignorance." (See page 788 of the case.)

Some say that answering these questions would harm a judge's fairness (or "impartiality"). But the law says that answering these types of questions definitely does not hurt a judge's fairness or impartiality (see pages 774-784); and that it is desirable to select judges who have preconceived views on legal issues--it shows them to be more qualified (see pages 777-778).

UPDATE: Sixteen judges have responded to our survey. To view their responses, visit our responses page.

Download the survey we sent to the judges here. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the survey.

View the postcard we mailed out.

Below is an email sent out from the Iowa Family Policy Center Action, explaining their view of the retention vote.

Judicial Retention Elections: For Conscientious Voters, Ignorance is NOT Bliss

According to Article 1, Section 2 of the Iowa Constitution, “All political power is inherent in the people.” It is for this reason that officeholders, including judges, are required to periodically go before the voters. The affirmation and consent of the governed (through the ballot box) lends credibility to officeholders’ work done in our name.

As each election nears, our office is inundated with phone calls and e-mails requesting information about the judges standing for retention. In an attempt to assist in educating voters about Iowa judges over the last couple of election cycles, we have asked judges to respond to a brief, respectful questionnaire. (See http://www.iowajudges.org for more information.)

Leading up to the 2006 election, IFPC joined with several pro-family groups to form Iowans Concerned About Judges. This joint effort, collectively representing tens of thousands of Iowans, was not enough to convince Iowa Judges to tell us their judicial philosophy by answering the questionnaire. Our group agreed with the 2002 US Supreme Court White decision, which said: “voter ignorance” concerning judges is wrong and should end; questionnaires like ours allow judges to remain impartial; and judges who state their judicial philosophy, show that they are more qualified to serve. Sadly, the Iowa judicial branch, with very few exceptions, disagrees.

As a result, we have had to focus our energy on areas that are more accessible to the electorate, like legislative races, in this election cycle. Still, the question remains of what to do with the judges whose names appear on this November’s ballot.

It is important to remember that you, the Iowa voter, are the employer! This is a job interview, and the judges are asking you to hire them for a guaranteed 6 (or 8) year period paying approximately $900,000 (or $1,400,000.00) in taxpayer funded salary and benefits.

In my personal opinion, leaving the judicial section of the ballot blank is not acceptable. I believe not casting a vote communicates a quiet capitulation to a system that undermines the credibility of the judiciary. When the tally is reported on election day, judicial races will be reported according to the total number of votes cast. Even if the overwhelming majority of Iowa voters leave the judicial ballot blank, the vast majority of Iowa judges will be retained by 70% or more of the votes cast.

That is why I personally cannot in good conscience vote to “hire” judges who refuse to tell me what they believe on issues like life, marriage, and parental rights, and whether they believe in judicial restraint or activism. I cannot hire judges under those circumstances any more than I would hire a job applicant at IFPC who likewise refused to answer pertinent legal questions about the job. Sadly, I, as a private citizen, am compelled to cast a “No” vote on each and every judicial retention vote until their refusal to answer pertinent questions ends. Even though I’m guessing there are some judges who believe in judicial restraint, and who recognize life, marriage, and parental rights as sacred and in need of protection, they won’t get my “Yes” vote until they say so. This organization can’t tell you how to vote, so you’ll have to make your own decision.

For conscientious voters, ignorance is NOT bliss.

Chuck Hurley, J.D.
President, Iowa Family Policy Center ACTION