So, there was quite a shindig up in America’s Dairyland this past week. How many fried curds, brats and Spotted Cows were consumed? I wouldn’t hazard a guess.
Democrats, after last fall’s painful defeats, were elated by the outcome of a race to fill a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat. It was seen as a test of which way the political winds are blowing after the first two chaotic months of the Trump administration, including billionaire Elon Musk’s reckless efforts to make government “efficient.”
A liberal judge from Dane County, Susan Crawford, won the seat over Brad Schimel, a Waukesha County Judge and former Republican attorney general who embraced support from Trump and Musk. At stake was a 4-3 court majority, with issues such as abortion rights, redistricting and public union bargaining rights hanging in the balance.
At least $100 million was spent by the candidates and allied groups, making it the most expensive judicial election in history. Musk spent $20 million trying to get Schimel elected. Elon also awarded two Wisconsin voters $1 million each just days before the vote.
It was not money well spent. And too much money was spent.
“Today should be a breaking point for our state. Even if your preferred candidate wins — no matter if you’re liberal, conservative, or independent — every single Wisconsinite should be alarmed at this grotesque billionaire arms race,” said Wisconsin Democracy Campaign Executive Director Nick Ramos.
Ramos was encouraged by strong turnout. “But the past two months have shown us a terrifying preview of what’s coming — an America where billionaires run the show, and the rest of us are just spectators,” he said.
Yeah, every victory party must have its Debbie Downer. But, of course, he’s right.
Fortunately, in Iowa, we have the “merit system” for selecting judges. Nominating commissions, made up of lawyers and gubernatorial appointees, find qualified candidates for district and appellate court openings and forward them to the governor, who makes the final pick. Justices and judges face periodic retention votes.
It’s true, in 2010, religious conservatives led a loud campaign to kick three justices off the Iowa Supreme Court after a unanimous ruling striking down a ban on same-sex marriage. We lost three good justices to a wave of lies spouted by religious conservatives playing on fears. Sounds familiar.
Like Spotted Cow, a spectacle like we saw in Wisconsin isn’t available in Iowa.
But, don’t get too smug folks. Iowa’s judicial system is now suffering from creeping politics.
It’s like creeping Charlie, which any yard guy will tell you is tough to stop once it gets started.
This past week a House judiciary subcommittee and full committee kept a bill alive that would change the way district court judges are selected. The legislation would remove the senior district judges who chair nominating commissions in each Judicial District. Those slots would be filled by the governor, giving her appointees a majority on the commissions.
Opponents argue it would be a mistake to remove judges, who bring years of expertise and administrative support to the commissions. They also argued a commission with equal numbers of lawyers and political appointees creates needed balance.
Rachel Paine Caufield, cochair of the Drake University Department of Political Science and an expert on merit selection systems, called Iowa’s current process “the gold standard.”
“The system works. It’s proven to work,” Caufield said.
Supporters contend the elected governor should appoint a commission majority. Some also argued lawyers on the commissions would be unduly influenced by the judge serving as chair and the judges selected, who may handle their cases. And did you know many lawyers are libs?
Fortunately, Republicans on the subcommittee showed little or no enthusiasm for the bill. As previously when the Senate approved similar bills, the House likely will let it die.
But Iowa’s gold standard was tarnished in 2019.
In the final hours of the session, Republicans pushed through a measure giving the governor appointment power over nine of 17 seats on the State Judicial Nominating Commission, which picks potential supreme court justices.
Previously, the commission was split evenly, with eight lawyers selected by members of the Bar Association, eight gubernatorial appointees and a supreme court justice as chair. Lawmakers subtracted the justice and gave Gov. Kim Reynolds an extra pick.
The bill also shortened the term for chief justices from eight years to two years. It was a rebuke to then-Chief Justice Mark Cady, who led the way on the marriage ruling and a 2018 ruling establishing abortion access as a fundamental right. Republicans wanted a conservative chief justice.
Sadly, Cady died unexpectedly in November 2019 of a heart attack while walking his dog in Des Moines.
The legislation could been worse. The original version of the 2019 legislation removed all the bar appointees and replaced them with members chosen by legislative leaders who would no longer face Senate confirmation. Fortunately, that idea was scrapped.
An outfit called “Judicial Crisis Network” ran ads in Iowa advocating for the more dramatic changes. One ad said the current system was "making Iowa courts soft on crime, big on abortion and a gold mine for trial lawyers."
In December of last year, the State Judicial Nominating Commission approved a new rule prohibiting its members from discussing any applicants with the governor before it sends her nominees. It’s a good rule, although violations would be difficult to monitor.
Have the changes had any effect? Well, three of four justices who upheld Iowa’s six-week abortion ban were selected under the revised system.
So, a $100 million circus isn’t coming to town. But making sure creeping politics doesn’t choke the whole yard requires vigilance. Don’t eat too many fried curds. They’ll make you sleepy.
(319) 398-8262; todd.dorman@gmail.com
Democrats, after last fall’s painful defeats, were elated by the outcome of a race to fill a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat. It was seen as a test of which way the political winds are blowing after the first two chaotic months of the Trump administration, including billionaire Elon Musk’s reckless efforts to make government “efficient.”
A liberal judge from Dane County, Susan Crawford, won the seat over Brad Schimel, a Waukesha County Judge and former Republican attorney general who embraced support from Trump and Musk. At stake was a 4-3 court majority, with issues such as abortion rights, redistricting and public union bargaining rights hanging in the balance.
At least $100 million was spent by the candidates and allied groups, making it the most expensive judicial election in history. Musk spent $20 million trying to get Schimel elected. Elon also awarded two Wisconsin voters $1 million each just days before the vote.
It was not money well spent. And too much money was spent.
“Today should be a breaking point for our state. Even if your preferred candidate wins — no matter if you’re liberal, conservative, or independent — every single Wisconsinite should be alarmed at this grotesque billionaire arms race,” said Wisconsin Democracy Campaign Executive Director Nick Ramos.
Ramos was encouraged by strong turnout. “But the past two months have shown us a terrifying preview of what’s coming — an America where billionaires run the show, and the rest of us are just spectators,” he said.
Yeah, every victory party must have its Debbie Downer. But, of course, he’s right.
Fortunately, in Iowa, we have the “merit system” for selecting judges. Nominating commissions, made up of lawyers and gubernatorial appointees, find qualified candidates for district and appellate court openings and forward them to the governor, who makes the final pick. Justices and judges face periodic retention votes.
It’s true, in 2010, religious conservatives led a loud campaign to kick three justices off the Iowa Supreme Court after a unanimous ruling striking down a ban on same-sex marriage. We lost three good justices to a wave of lies spouted by religious conservatives playing on fears. Sounds familiar.
Like Spotted Cow, a spectacle like we saw in Wisconsin isn’t available in Iowa.
But, don’t get too smug folks. Iowa’s judicial system is now suffering from creeping politics.
It’s like creeping Charlie, which any yard guy will tell you is tough to stop once it gets started.
This past week a House judiciary subcommittee and full committee kept a bill alive that would change the way district court judges are selected. The legislation would remove the senior district judges who chair nominating commissions in each Judicial District. Those slots would be filled by the governor, giving her appointees a majority on the commissions.
Opponents argue it would be a mistake to remove judges, who bring years of expertise and administrative support to the commissions. They also argued a commission with equal numbers of lawyers and political appointees creates needed balance.
Rachel Paine Caufield, cochair of the Drake University Department of Political Science and an expert on merit selection systems, called Iowa’s current process “the gold standard.”
“The system works. It’s proven to work,” Caufield said.
Supporters contend the elected governor should appoint a commission majority. Some also argued lawyers on the commissions would be unduly influenced by the judge serving as chair and the judges selected, who may handle their cases. And did you know many lawyers are libs?
Fortunately, Republicans on the subcommittee showed little or no enthusiasm for the bill. As previously when the Senate approved similar bills, the House likely will let it die.
But Iowa’s gold standard was tarnished in 2019.
In the final hours of the session, Republicans pushed through a measure giving the governor appointment power over nine of 17 seats on the State Judicial Nominating Commission, which picks potential supreme court justices.
Previously, the commission was split evenly, with eight lawyers selected by members of the Bar Association, eight gubernatorial appointees and a supreme court justice as chair. Lawmakers subtracted the justice and gave Gov. Kim Reynolds an extra pick.
The bill also shortened the term for chief justices from eight years to two years. It was a rebuke to then-Chief Justice Mark Cady, who led the way on the marriage ruling and a 2018 ruling establishing abortion access as a fundamental right. Republicans wanted a conservative chief justice.
Sadly, Cady died unexpectedly in November 2019 of a heart attack while walking his dog in Des Moines.
The legislation could been worse. The original version of the 2019 legislation removed all the bar appointees and replaced them with members chosen by legislative leaders who would no longer face Senate confirmation. Fortunately, that idea was scrapped.
An outfit called “Judicial Crisis Network” ran ads in Iowa advocating for the more dramatic changes. One ad said the current system was "making Iowa courts soft on crime, big on abortion and a gold mine for trial lawyers."
In December of last year, the State Judicial Nominating Commission approved a new rule prohibiting its members from discussing any applicants with the governor before it sends her nominees. It’s a good rule, although violations would be difficult to monitor.
Have the changes had any effect? Well, three of four justices who upheld Iowa’s six-week abortion ban were selected under the revised system.
So, a $100 million circus isn’t coming to town. But making sure creeping politics doesn’t choke the whole yard requires vigilance. Don’t eat too many fried curds. They’ll make you sleepy.
(319) 398-8262; todd.dorman@gmail.com
Opinion: Iowa is no Wisconsin, but our courts are hardly politics free
Supporters for Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford cheer during her election night party Tuesday, April 1, 2025, in Madison, …
www.thegazette.com
