Iowa Poll looking ominous for retention of Supreme Court Justices

[Ian David]

Iowa Poll looking ominous for retention of Supreme Court Justices

We've written several times about the ballot measure in Iowa on the retention of three Supreme Court Justices. It's usually perfunctory. But, this year, the anti-gay forces are trying to end the terms of the three Justices over the same-sex marriage decision. This doesn't look good:

Voters remain split over the retention of Iowa's Supreme Court justices, yet a new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows more than one-third now want to oust all three.

Thirty-seven percent of likely voters say they will vote to remove all three Iowa Supreme Court justices in Tuesday's election. Thirty-four percent say they will vote to keep all three, and 10 percent plan to retain some.

The poll shows movement toward the ouster of at least one justice, a result unseen in Iowa history since the merit-selection and retention process was adopted in 1962.

On the ballot are Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit, who were among seven justices who voted in the unanimous 2009 decision that allowed same-sex marriage, triggering a political uproar.

This is the closest thing to a marriage vote on the ballot this year. There will be repercussions for marriage equality if the haters are successful.

More:
http://gay.americablog.com/2010/10/iowa-poll-looks-ominous-for-retention.html

[marmar]

1. There's always a backlash against progress.......

nt

[depakid]

2. Australians think you are crazy beyond measure to subject the juduciary to the political process

[Creideiki]

5. Australians aren't the only ones

[AnArmyVeteran]

10. I agree, it's crazy.

[progressoid]

3. That's my douche neighbor who has a big "NO ACTIVIST JUDGES" sign in his yard.

Idiots. :grr:

[Unvanguard]

4. I don't see this being an earth-shattering victory for them, if they succeed.

It might be if they managed a constitutional amendment, which is a genuine worry (how much threat is there of a Republican takeover of Iowa's legislature?) But any "threat by example" is going to be limited to those states where (a) judges are subject to elections, (b) same-sex marriage is sufficiently unpopular to make a threat to their retention elections plausible (and to make the judiciary necessary), and (c) judges, in the absence of the threat to their electoral prospects, would be willing to legalize same-sex marriage, i.e. are not constitutionally barred from doing so and are substantially ahead of the rest of their state's political institutions.

The first condition is fairly widespread in state courts, admittedly, but the other two whittle down the range of possibility pretty severely. There is not much state court rulings can do for us at this point; the states most likely to advance the tide of same-sex marriage (Rhode Island, Minnesota, New York, Maryland) are most likely to do it legislatively. The one possible exception is New Jersey, where public opinion is sufficiently supportive that even if there are retention elections, it is doubtful that they will make any difference.

These considerations, of course, are magnified if NOM's message ends up being ambiguous, and not all the judges fail to be retained.

[IADEMO2004]

6. A ray of hope

Many Iowans don't look at the back of the ballot

[Unvanguard]

7. They need to vote "Yes", not to leave it blank.

I'd guess that poorly-informed voters would be likely to break for "Yes" (i.e. retain) on this one, though, and there are a lot of undecideds according to that poll.

[IADEMO2004]

8. The "Out of State Hate Bus" was in Red Oak this week.

10-12 yes were there to meet them and 20-25 no voters. We expected Steve King and all we got was TX Rep Louie (TERROR BABIES) Gohmert. Seve King has an awful peer group.

[Ian David]

9. Donate to One Iowa

Donate to One Iowa
https://equalityfederation.salsalabs.com/o/35009/t/193/p/salsa/donation/common/public/?donate_page_KEY=85