« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 0 today (and 2 NFP) | Main | Ind. Gov't. - Governor names Kari Evans Bennett to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) »

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Courts - "State of the Judiciary" in Indiana and Iowa

The Chief Justices of Indiana and Iowa addressed their respective General Assemblies yesterday. Here are some reports.

Indiana. Eric Bradner of the Evansville Courier and Press has this story, headed "Sentencing reforms pushed." Although most of the story is devoted to the sentencing changes supported by both the Governor and the Chief Justice:

Shepard discussed three more issues during his address: the work the courts have done to limit mortgage foreclosures; technological advances the courts have made in recent years; and "plain English" jury instructions that avoid legal jargon.
Iowa. If you have been reading the ILB, you know that the Supreme Court in Iowa is under siege. The three members up for retention in Nov. were voted out; the remaining four justices are threatened with impeachment. This story by Iqor Volsky of The Wonk Room gives the picture; it begins:
This morning, Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady defended the court’s 2009 decision to overturn the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and allow same-sex couples to marry in the state, even as three Republican lawmakers in the Iowa House were drafting articles of impeachment against him and the three justices that joined the opinion but “did not stand for retention in November.” Cady was the author of the unanimous marriage ruling, Varnum v. Brien. * * *

“Unlike our political institutions, courts serve the law, not the interests of constituents,” Cady said. “Courts serve the law, not the demands of special interest groups. Courts serve the law, not the electorate’s reaction to a particular decision. By serving the rule of law, courts protect the civil, political, economic and social rights of all citizens.”

Cady reminded lawmakers that “the duty of courts to review the constitutionality of laws is known as judicial review and is one of our most basic responsibilities…This is the very duty the court exercised in the Varnum decision.” “[S]ince 1846, litigants in Iowa in roughly 1000 cases have asked the Iowa Supreme Court to protect their constitutional rights by invalidating a state law,” Cady said. “During this same time, the court has declared acts of the legislature unconstitutional in over 150 cases. Unlike the Varnum decision, however, most of these court decisions have received little attention. But, that lack of attention does not diminish the strength and importance of the principle at stake.”

But the message seemed to be lost on Cady’s critics.

Here is a report from Grant Schulte of the DesMoines Register headed "Chief Justice warns Iowa lawmakers about threat to checks and balances." Some quotes:
Iowa Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady warned lawmakers today that attacks on the judiciary based on misunderstandings poses a threat to the checks-and-balances system that protects individual rights. * * *

The speech came nearly two months after voters ousted Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit in a retention vote. All three were the targets of an anti-retention campaign by conservative activists who opposed the gay marriage ruling. The removal vote was the first of its kind since Iowa adopted a commission-based judge selection system in 1962.

Cady briefly addressed the gay marriage decision, Varnum v. Brien, which overturned the state’s one-man, one-woman marriage law and allowed same-sex couples to wed. He said the justices “worked hard to author a written decision to fully explain our reasoning to all Iowans, and we understand how Iowans could reach differing opinions about this decision.”

“This discourse is not new for Iowa, although I doubt it has ever been so strong,” Cady said. “Our court has, many times in the past, decided cases involving civil rights that were quite controversial at the time. Yet, over time, those cases have become a celebrated part of our proud and rich Iowa history of equality for all.”

Cady drew strong, standing applause from the public gallery and roughly half of the chamber when he mentioned past civil rights decisions and “our proud and rich Iowa history of equality for all.” Many Republican legislators and all of the judges in the chamber stayed seated.

Cady argued that courts serve the law and not political constituents. He rejected the notion that courts should suspend rulings and give the legislature time to act, an argument made by some conservative activists who opposed the gay marriage ruling.

“Courts serve the law, not the demands of special interest groups,” he said. “Courts serve the law, not the electorate’s reaction to a political decision. By serving the rule of law, courts protect the civil, political, economic and social rights of all citizens.” * * **

The chief justice also promised new openness within the courts to boost public trust. The Iowa Supreme Court, for instance, will start to hold some of its oral arguments in communities throughout Iowa. He pointed to the recent decision by the 15-member judicial nominating commission to interview Iowa Supreme Court applicants in a public forum.

Here are copies of the text of the State of the Judiciary from Indiana and from Iowa.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 13, 2011 11:13 AM
Posted to Courts in general