About this site

  • Comments
    When you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.
  • No Legal Advice
    Although I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
  • Personal View
    This blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.
  • Tung Yin's Recent Papers (SSRN)

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Stats


  • Check Google Page Rank

« Quick election thoughts | Main | MSNBC's overlords sending a message through Keith Olbermann? »

November 03, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834522c6369e20133f590444f970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Retention elections for judges:

Comments

Brian

As I digest the news, I'm beginning to think maybe it wasn't so remarkable, and certainly wasn't a referendum on same-sex marriage in Iowa. In a typical Iowa election, judges routinely get a ~30% "no" vote, presumably from folks who are upset about something the legal system did to them, or who just like to vote against authority. So all the Vander Plaats crowd really did was get a win 20% on a "family values" issue in a huge conservative turnout year. And they outspent the other side $1 million to ZERO (the justices refused to campaign). To me, that seems far from remarkable.

Tom Snee

There were also 130,000 people who voted in the election but left the justice retention portion of the ballot blank. I'd like to think that if there had been a campaign--whether by the justices or some advocacy group--then enough of those 130,000 would have turned the ballot over and voted in favor of retention that the justices would still be on the bench and Iowans wouldn't look like a bunch of reactionary asshats.

anon

However, the voters of Iowa had another method of redress and they certainly exercised it by not retaining those judges.

The comments to this entry are closed.