Consequences of Elections
Last Friday morning, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed a ruling from just four years ago. The earlier ruling declared that there was a right to abortion contained within the state’s constitution. That short-term precedent was tossed out in the new ruling.
What changed? Not the words of the constitution…but the makeup of the panel interpreting it. And contrary to those hollering about what a travesty it is, it’s actually exactly as our founders established.
Since the 2018 ruling, a number of justices retired. It’s the role of the governor to appoint replacements, following a committee vetting process. She appointed replacements, they interpreted the constitution differently…and that’s why the 2018 decision was overruled.
Democrats held the governor’s chair for a dozen years, from 1999 to 2011…and made appointments of justices who had a hand in the 2018 ruling as well as the earlier case in 2009 that had the effect of legalizing same gender marriage.
Had a Democrat won an election for governor at any point since 2010, the replacements that are currently on the court would have been appointed by that governor. But Republicans won, and with that…the right to appoint justices.
To those complaining that Kim Reynolds’ appointments changed state law…one could just as easily say Tom Vilsack’s and Chet Culver’s appointments changed state law. Voters tossed out some of those justices in retention elections because they didn’t like what was happening in that branch of government.
I’m not offering an opinion on which cases were decided correctly…from a legal standpoint, those justices who got tossed may well have gotten it right. But this “appointment of justices” thing cuts both ways…and not just at the U.S. Supreme Court.
