Legal Commentary

To follow up on my post last week about the judicial retention elections in Iowa, I thought it was worth pointing out that Bob Vander Plaats (the self-appointed leader of the anti-justice movement) has now initiated a movement to impeach the remaining justices on the state supreme court.  When it became apparent that the justices would not heed Vander Plaat?s call to resign, he decided to up the ante.

Jesse Choper and Herma Hill Kay have begun circulating a letter protesting this movement (which I will certainly sign), in which they appear to reluctantly concede that the non-retention vote was a legitimate response to the same-sex marriage decision?but insist that impeachment clearly is not.  As I wrote earlier, I?m not so sure about the virtues of the retention vote in this context, either.  

I?m wondering if people think there is a meaningful distinction between retention elections (in states that have them) and impeachment efforts.  If, as Choper and Kay point out, Iowa law prohibits judges from deciding cases in a manner ?swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism?, does it really matter whether that clamor or criticism comes in the form of a retention vote or an impeachment proceeding?  Probably not.  But does that mean that neither method is appropriate for removing a sitting justice based on a constitutional decision?  Are retention votes different from impeachment?