More Newspaper Columnists Bitching About The Judge Retention Thing

Chad Nation of the Council Bluffs Daily Nonpareil has a crabby and sanctimonious column about the 3 Iowa Supreme Court Justices who lost their retention vote and how the retention vote almost filtered down to the District Court level:

Fourth District Court judges’ retention rates were among the lowest in the state and Chief Judge Jeffrey Larson can’t help but assume that local judges were caught up in the campaign to vote no for the Supreme Court justices.

Larson said the retention election was surprising and unfortunate. He was surprised that the campaign to oust Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit “trickled down” to district court judges.

The election was the first time since the retention system was created in 1962 that a state Supreme Court justice has been removed, let alone three.

While no district court judges were denied retention, “yes” vote totals were considerably lower than years past.

Gay marriage opponents spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in a campaign to persuade voters to reject the Supreme Court justices.

A group of former governors, lawyers and judges had argued Iowa’s independent judiciary was at risk if a one-issue campaign succeeded in removing the justices.

Larson echoed the sentiment.

“Allowing attacks on justices based on one decision is a bad precedent,” he said.

Larson’s retention vote in the Fourth District – which includes Audubon, Cass, Fremont, Harrison, Mills, Montgomery, Page, Pottawattamie and Shelby counties – was 58 percent yes and 42 percent no.

District Court Judges Kathleen Kilnoski and Richard Davidson were 59 and 57 percent yes respectively. Associate Judges Gary Anderson and Charles Fagan were 58 and 52 percent yes.

Guess what that means? 

It means you don't have the lifetime appointment job you thought you had. 

The People are waking up.  We're keeping score.  We're organizing.

Next time, it won't be a so-called "single issue".  It'll be a whole bunch of issues.  Whether it's not giving a prison sentence, much less taking away the driver's license of an intoxicated driver who ran over a woman and killed her, or maybe it could be letting somebody charged with First Degree Murder out on bail, or maybe it's a judge who lets the county auditor off on his 2nd or 3rd drunk driving charge.  Who's keeping count, anyway?

It was difficult to find Fourth District judge retention results from years past, so I'll use Polk County since it's available.  Look at 2008, Fifth District judges had about 30% of the voters not choosing retention.  It was about the same in 2006.  One thing Bob Vander Plaats proved, it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to go from 30% to 54%.  That means not everybody who voted not to retain the justices had "gay marriage" on their mind.  Judging from historical averages, it was a minority of those who voted not to retain.

Can we get a group organized that will target District Judges for the way they behave?  I'm talking about the soft-on-crime judges.  The judges who let repeat offenders off with probation and dismissed charges.  The judges who sweep repeat juvenile crimes under the rug.  The judges who like to have sex with the assistant county attorney who is trying cases before him.

The media sure isn't raising a spotlight on any of these issues.  These lazy assed newspaper columnists and "editorial boards" around the state would rather whine and bitch and moan in the aftermath than attempt to move a few rocks to see what's underneath.  It's time to stop acting like judges are somehow a protected class.