Iowa justices who approved gay marriage may be tossed.

[rurallib]

Three of the Iowa justices who voted in the unanimous decision that discrimination in marriage was illegal may now face being removed by voters in the off year election.
While Iowa has a pretty non-partisan method for selecting and appointing justices, we also have a chance to remove a portion of the judiciary every election. Losing GOP primary contender Bob VanderPlaats has made removing these justices his cause.
As expected, this is a well funded campaign with money coming in from crazies all over the country. The justices in question have not launched a counter campaign. There is some token opposition but as you can imagine not much funding.
One factor which will help those looking to oust the justices is that this question is on the back of the ballot with things like votes for water district commissioner. Many will not bother to turn the ballot over.

http://www.bleedingheartland.com/diary/4263/register-poll-finds-judicial-retention-vote-a-tossup
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101004/NEWS/10040323/Iowa-Poll-Retention-of-justices-a-tossup

"The retention election could hinge on which side mobilizes the most down-ticket voters. A Register analysis of voting records in the past two non-presidential elections shows that only 60 percent of Iowa voters answered the retention questions for justices and appeals-court judges.

Justices and judges need a simple majority of "yes" votes to stay on the bench.
Numbers 'stunning,' says one observer

Ousting the justices would not undo the gay marriage ruling or change the way judges are selected. But scholars who study judge-selection practices said the removal of even one justice would shock judiciaries across the nation, embolden conservative activists and, over time, could open the door to changes in the way Iowa chooses judges."

[no_hypocrisy]

1. I wouldn't discount out-of-state contributions for certain candidates.

[rurallib]

5. I saw a list of some of the contributors early on but not lately

and of course the usual suspects were there.
Terry Branstad is running for governor again. I believe he appointed 2 of these three justices. He originally came out in favor of voting the justices out. The TeaPoopers hate him, so he has to cuddle up to them. When it was pointed out he had appointed some of the justices he quickly reversed and said 'no comment.'
Should Branstad be elected (:puke: ) he could get to remake the Supreme Court immediately.

[rurallib]

2. I do want to add how utterly ashamed of my state for this.

Iowa has long had a reputation of tolerance, civility and intelligence. Like so many things in this country, this is reputation only anymore.

[Pirate Smile]

6. Iowa Democrats managed to keep all ballot initiatives to repeal/constitutional amendment to overturn

the Supreme Court ruling. I think that is a big positive. The problem is that we will probably get a Republican Governor and more Republicans in the state house and senate. Being able to keep those anti-gay marriage initiatives off the ballots is going to be exponentially harder once we have more Republicans with more power.

Keeping the RW crap off the ballot is one of the things that really shows the huge difference between the two parties.

Iowa is one of very few states that have gay marriage. That's something to be proud of right now.

[Pirate Smile]

3. I voted to keep them but I don't know that the more supportive people are generally aware that they

need to do so because the RW is waging a war against them. I had heard of what was going on so I made sure to vote for their retention. I think a lot of people just skip that part because they don't know anything specific. I actually skipped the lower courts because I didn't know anything specific positive or negative. I'm sure the RW will be mobilized to vote against them but I haven't seen much pushing Dems to support them. Have you?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rurallib]

7. So I take it you think they should be removed?

[kenny blankenship]

11. I keep waiting for it to come back and answer your question.

A simple yes or no is all that's required. Puzzling. Maybe it's afraid of "judgment day" and the wrath of Mod?

[Pirate Smile]

8. I just thought of the fact that there is a lot of early voting and students voting in

Johnson County/I.C. because of the under 21 provision they want to get rid of.

It would be EXTREMELY helpful if those students knew to vote for the retention of those judges. I'm not in Johnson County. I wonder if this is widely known there. That seems like a good place to look for support. I know the early voting has been happening since September. I wonder if any of the University of Iowa GLBT groups are doing anything on this.

[rurallib]

9. Well, I know they are aware of the issue.

But it is easily forgotten making calls.

[itsrobert]

10. Mormons bankrolling this?

Might be.

[Shallah Kali]

12. Thinkprogress says it is mostly American Family Association

so check their funding to find the main culprits:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/09/oconnor-iowa/

Yet Iowa For Freedom (IFF), the organization spearheading the anti-gay campaign, responded almost immediately with a press release claiming that O’Connor actually said the exact opposite of what she really said. IFF’s release “Applauds U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor supporting its cause” and “thank former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Wednesday for supporting Iowa For Freedom’s efforts.”

IFF’s blatant misrepresentation of O’Connor’s opposition to their campaign is the least of their questionable decisions. IFF’s anti-gay campaign received considerable support from the American Family Association, a Mississippi-based hate group which claims that Adolf Hitler and “virtually all of the Stormtroopers, the Brownshirts, were male homosexuals” and that marriage equality causes crop failure.

Indeed, the AFA may be the single most important force behind Iowa’s anti-gay campaign. They recently announced that they “put a couple of hundred thousand dollars into this campaign,” IFF’s false press release indicates that it is “Paid for by AFA Action,” the AFA’s political arm, and the IFF’s website used to indicate that it was funded by AFA Action — although this indication appears to have been removed.

So Iowa’s anti-gay campaign isn’t just willing to falsely claim the support of one of its most prominent opponents, it also shamelessly accepts support from one of the most repulsive fabricators of anti-gay hate speech.