Explained: Judicial Retention and Gay Marriage in Iowa

Here is a primer on Iowa's judicial retention vote.

Why does Iowa use judicial retention? 

In 1962, Iowa voters approved a constitutional reform that replaced the process of selecting judges by popular vote with a merit selection and retention election process. In a retention election, judges do not have opponents. Instead, voters decide whether or not to retain a judge in office.  If a judge receives a simple majority of "yes" votes, the judge may serve another full term.       

Why do some people see the vote as a referendum on gay marriage?

In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a ruling that effectively legalized gay marriage in Iowa. In the 2010 general election, three justices who were part of that decision — Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit — were targeted for removal, and they all fell short of the simple majority of votes needed to retain their jobs.

What does that have to do with the 2012 election?

Justice David Wiggins is at the center of attention this time around because he was one of seven judges who issued the 2009 ruling. Two prominent Republican politicians, Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, and Rick Santorum, the winner of January’s Republican presidential caucuses in Iowa, have been campaigning against Wiggins.

Are other judges on the ballot?

Yes. Edward Mansfield, Thomas Waterman and Bruce Zager, the justices appointed to fill the positions of the justices ousted in 2010, will be on the ballot.

What does the polling on Iowa judicial retention say?

Voters continue to be split over the retention of Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins, with a large percentage unsure of how they will vote, the most recent Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows. Thirty-eight percent of likely voters say they will vote to retain Wiggins in Tuesday’s election. Thirty-four percent say they will vote to remove Wiggins; 22 percent say they are unsure of how they will vote; and 6 percent don’t plan to vote on that ballot question.