The attorneys who filed the Iowa lawsuit over judicial retention requirements have withdrawn their request for injunctive relief. Therefore, the three State Supreme Court Justices who were ousted by the voters last month will leave the court, regardless of the eventual outcome of the lawsuit. See this story. It seems the judges were not comfortable with the idea that they might remain on the court via a technicality.
The Iowa Constitution says judicial retention elections must be on separate ballots, a requirement that the state ignored in last month’s election. The state put the judicial retention elections on the same ballot that was used to elect federal, state and local officials.
EVERY word in a CONSTITUTION is a technicality.
Subvert any part of any constitution and any entire regime can be overthrown.
i.e. — the election law bureaucrat MORONS who failed to have the separate ballots should pay — put in jail and/or be bankrupted.
i.e. NONSTOP hammers on election law bureaucrat MORONS until they wake up or are removed — and are replaced by some folks who really care about having some sort of real Democracy in the U.S.A.
How come the 3 IA supremes did NOT apparently complain BEFORE the election about the separate ballot *technicality* ???
It appears that the section of the constitution providing for judicial retention elections was modified in 1962 (there were other sections dealing with elections of judges that were removed at that time).
In those 48 years has it ever been the practice to use separate ballot papers for judicial retention elections? And if we are going hypertechnical, it would be need to be a separate ballot paper for each judge, “separate ballot for … such judge” refers to a judge singular. “judges” refers to the class of individuals that should be subject to to retention elections, each on his or her own “separate ballot”.
If retention elections replaced contested judicial elections, then “separate ballot” is more likely referring that each individual judge is running in a one-candidate race, separate from any other judge-candidate seeking retention.
Alternatively, judges terms end on January 1 of a particular year. Such terms are extended only if they are retained. The 3 supreme court justices were not ousted, but rather were not retained. A judge must request a retention election. If he makes no such request, then he is no longer a judge.
Since the default condition is to terminate a judge’s tenure at the end of term, then it is possible that all retention elections since 1962 are void for failure to use a separate ballot paper, and any judgments rendered by falsely retained judges would be void. Empty the prisons.
Where is that Model Election Law — even with a chapter and a zillion words about retention elections ???