Iowa Supreme Court
| Iowa Supreme Court |
|---|
|
| Court Information |
| Justices: 7 |
| Founded: 1846 |
| Location: Des Moines |
| Salary |
| Associates: $187,326[1] |
| Judicial Selection |
| Method: Assisted appointment (governor-controlled commission) |
| Term: 8 years |
| Active justices |
|
Christopher McDonald |
Founded in 1846, the Iowa Supreme Court is the state's court of last resort and has seven judgeships. The current chief of the court is Susan Christensen. As of September 2022, all seven judges on the court were appointed by a Republican governor.
The state supreme court meets in the Iowa Judicial Branch Building in Des Moines, Iowa.[2]
In Iowa, state supreme court justices are selected through assisted appointment with a governor-controlled judicial nominating commission. Justices are appointed by the governor with the assistance of a commission with a majority of members selected by the governor. There are 10 states that use this selection method. To read more about the assisted appointment of judges, click here.
Jurisdiction
All appeals in Iowa go first to the state supreme court, which then decides to take on the appeal or send it down to the Iowa Court of Appeals. The supreme court also has administrative and supervisory powers over the state's judiciary.[3][4]
Justices
The table below lists the current judges of the Iowa Supreme Court, their political party, and when they assumed office.
| Office | Name | Party | Date assumed office |
|---|---|---|---|
| Iowa Supreme Court | Susan Christensen | Nonpartisan | 2018 |
| Iowa Supreme Court | Edward Mansfield | Nonpartisan | 2011 |
| Iowa Supreme Court | David May | Nonpartisan | August 19, 2022 |
| Iowa Supreme Court | Matthew McDermott | Nonpartisan | April 3, 2020 |
| Iowa Supreme Court | Christopher McDonald | Nonpartisan | April 5, 2019 |
| Iowa Supreme Court | Dana Oxley | Nonpartisan | February 24, 2020 |
| Iowa Supreme Court | Thomas Waterman | Nonpartisan | 2011 |
Judicial selection
- See also: Judicial selection in Iowa
The seven justices on the Iowa Supreme Court are selected through the assisted appointment method. When a vacancy occurs on the supreme court, the State Judicial Nominating Commission submits a list of three potential nominees to the governor, who appoints one to serve as a judge. The commission consists of 17 members—nine appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Iowa State Senate and eight (two from each congressional district) elected by lawyers.[5]
Iowa law states that no more than a simple majority of the state nominating commission may be of the same gender.[6]
Newly appointed judges serve for one year after their appointment. They must then compete in a yes-no retention election (occurring during the regularly scheduled general election) if they wish to remain on the court. They then serve eight-year terms.[7]
Qualifications
To serve on this court, a judge must be:[7]
- licensed to practice law in the state;
- a member of the Iowa bar;
- a resident of the state, district, or county to which they are appointed; and
- under the age of 72.
Note: Retirement at 72 is mandatory, though older judges may apply to become a senior judge. Senior judges must work a minimum of 13 weeks a year and are to receive a monthly retirement annuity and an annual stipend. They must retire at age 78 (or 80, if reappointed by the supreme court for additional one-year terms).[8]
Chief justice
The chief justice of the supreme court is elected by peer vote and serves a two-year term.[7]
Vacancies
If a midterm vacancy occurs on the court, the seat is filled as it normally would be if the vacancy occurred at the end of a judge's term. A judicial nominating commission recommends qualified candidates to the governor and the governor selects a successor from that list. The new appointee serves for at least one year and then stands for retention.[5]
The map below highlights how vacancies are filled in state supreme courts across the country.
Elections
- See also: Iowa Supreme Court elections
2024
- See also: Iowa Supreme Court elections, 2024
The term of one Iowa Supreme Court justice will expire on December 31, 2024. The one seat is up for retention election on November 5, 2024. The filing deadline was July 24, 2024.
Candidates and results
May's seat
Iowa Supreme Court
David May is running for retention to the Iowa Supreme Court on November 5, 2024.
Retention Vote |
% |
Votes |
|||
Yes |
|||||
No |
|||||
Total Votes |
|||||
|
|
2022
- See also: Iowa Supreme Court elections, 2022
Candidates and results
McDermott's seat
Iowa Supreme Court, Matthew McDermott's seat
Matthew McDermott was retained to the Iowa Supreme Court on November 8, 2022 with 67.5% of the vote.
Retention Vote |
% |
Votes |
|||
| ✔ | Yes |
67.5
|
605,391 | ||
No |
32.5
|
291,264 | |||
Total Votes |
896,655 | ||||
|
|
Oxley's seat
Iowa Supreme Court, Dana Oxley's seat
Dana Oxley was retained to the Iowa Supreme Court on November 8, 2022 with 67.0% of the vote.
Retention Vote |
% |
Votes |
|||
| ✔ | Yes |
67.0
|
591,837 | ||
No |
33.0
|
291,799 | |||
Total Votes |
883,636 | ||||
|
|
2020
- See also: Iowa Supreme Court elections, 2020
Candidates and results
Christensen's seat
Iowa Supreme Court
Susan Christensen was retained to the Iowa Supreme Court on November 3, 2020 with 73.0% of the vote.
Retention Vote |
% |
Votes |
|||
| ✔ | Yes |
73.0
|
859,886 | ||
No |
27.0
|
317,598 | |||
Total Votes |
1,177,484 | ||||
|
|
Mansfield's seat
Iowa Supreme Court
Edward Mansfield was retained to the Iowa Supreme Court on November 3, 2020 with 69.2% of the vote.
Retention Vote |
% |
Votes |
|||
| ✔ | Yes |
69.2
|
802,356 | ||
No |
30.8
|
356,374 | |||
Total Votes |
1,158,730 | ||||
|
|
McDonald's seat
Iowa Supreme Court
Christopher McDonald was retained to the Iowa Supreme Court on November 3, 2020 with 71.3% of the vote.
Retention Vote |
% |
Votes |
|||
| ✔ | Yes |
71.3
|
825,661 | ||
No |
28.7
|
332,499 | |||
Total Votes |
1,158,160 | ||||
|
|
Waterman's seat
Iowa Supreme Court
Thomas Waterman was retained to the Iowa Supreme Court on November 3, 2020 with 69.9% of the vote.
Retention Vote |
% |
Votes |
|||
| ✔ | Yes |
69.9
|
809,058 | ||
No |
30.1
|
348,665 | |||
Total Votes |
1,157,723 | ||||
|
|
2016
- See also: Iowa Supreme Court elections, 2016
Justices who faced retention
■ Mark Cady 
■ Daryl Hecht
■ Brent Appel
November 8 general election
Mark Cady was retained in the Iowa Supreme Court election with 65.30% of the vote.
| Iowa Supreme Court, Cady's seat, 2016 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | Yes votes | |
| Mark Cady | 65.30% | |
| Source: Iowa Secretary of State Official Results | ||
Daryl Hecht was retained in the Iowa Supreme Court election with 64.08% of the vote.
| Iowa Supreme Court, Hecht's seat, 2016 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | Yes votes | |
| Daryl Hecht | 64.08% | |
| Source: Iowa Secretary of State Official Results | ||
Brent Appel was retained in the Iowa Supreme Court election with 64.36% of the vote.
| Iowa Supreme Court, Appel's seat, 2016 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | Yes votes | |
| Brent Appel | 64.36% | |
| Source: Iowa Secretary of State Official Results | ||
- Election history, 2008-2012 (click to expand)
2012
- See also: Iowa judicial elections, 2012
Justices David Wiggins, Edward Mansfield, Bruce B. Zager, and Thomas Waterman were all up for retention in 2012; all were retained.[9] Wiggins had previously been retained; Mansfield, Zager, and Waterman were up for retention for the first time.
Candidate Incumbent Retention vote: Retention Vote % Bruce B. Zager 
Yes 829,934 74.1% David Wiggins Yes 680,284 54.5% Edward Mansfield Yes 839,157 74.3% Thomas Waterman Yes 846,993 74.8% 2010
- See also: 2010 State Supreme Court elections
Justices David Baker, Marsha Ternus, and Michael Streit were all up for retention in 2010; all were defeated. Percentages in the below tables indicate the percentages against retention.[10]
Iowa Supreme Court
2010 General election resultsCandidates Votes Percent David Baker 
n/a 54.14% Iowa Supreme Court
2010 General election resultsCandidates Votes Percent Marsha Ternus
n/a 54.98% Iowa Supreme Court
2010 General election resultsCandidates Votes Percent Michael Streit
n/a 54.38% 2008
- See also: State Supreme Court elections, 2008
Justices Mark S. Cady, Daryl L. Hecht, and Brent R. Appel were up for retention in 2008; all were retained.[11]
Caseloads
The Iowa Supreme Court does not provide specific numbers on its yearly caseload. According to a state judiciary publication:
- Approximately 2,000 appeals are filed with the supreme court each year.
- Of those, criminal appeals represent nearly 30%, appeals involving the termination of parental rights and children in need of assistance represent 25%, and family law appeals represent almost 20%.[3]
Analysis
Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters (2021)
In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters, a study on how state supreme court justices decided the cases that came before them. Our goal was to determine which justices ruled together most often, which frequently dissented, and which courts featured the most unanimous or contentious decisions.
The study tracked the position taken by each state supreme court justice in every case they decided in 2020, then tallied the number of times the justices on the court ruled together. We identified the following types of justices:
- We considered two justices opinion partners if they frequently concurred or dissented together throughout the year.
- We considered justices a dissenting minority if they frequently opposed decisions together as a -1 minority.
- We considered a group of justices a determining majority if they frequently determined cases by a +1 majority throughout the year.
- We considered a justice a lone dissenter if he or she frequently dissented alone in cases throughout the year.
Summary of cases decided in 2020
- Number of justices: 7
- Number of cases: 103
- Percentage of cases with a unanimous ruling: 68.0% (70)
- Justice most often writing the majority opinion: Justice Edward Mansfield (21)
- Per curiam decisions: 13
- Concurring opinions: 16
- Justice with most concurring opinions: Justice Brent Appel (13)
- Dissenting opinions: 38
- Justice with most dissenting opinions: Justice Brent Appel (20)
For the study's full set of findings in Iowa, click here.
Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship (2020)
- See also: Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship
Last updated: June 15, 2020
In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country as of June 15, 2020.
The study presented Confidence Scores that represented our confidence in each justice's degree of partisan affiliation, based on a variety of factors. This was not a measure of where a justice fell on the political or ideological spectrum, but rather a measure of how much confidence we had that a justice was or had been affiliated with a political party. To arrive at confidence scores we analyzed each justice's past partisan activity by collecting data on campaign finance, past political positions, party registration history, as well as other factors. The five categories of Confidence Scores were:
- Strong Democrat
- Mild Democrat
- Indeterminate[12]
- Mild Republican
- Strong Republican
We used the Confidence Scores of each justice to develop a Court Balance Score, which attempted to show the balance among justices with Democratic, Republican, and Indeterminate Confidence Scores on a court. Courts with higher positive Court Balance Scores included justices with higher Republican Confidence Scores, while courts with lower negative Court Balance Scores included justices with higher Democratic Confidence Scores. Courts closest to zero either had justices with conflicting partisanship or justices with Indeterminate Confidence Scores.[13]
Iowa had a Court Balance Score of 3.29, indicating Republican control of the court. In total, the study found that there were 15 states with Democrat-controlled courts, 27 states with Republican-controlled courts, and eight states with Split courts. The map below shows the court balance score of each state.
Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores (2012)
In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan outlook of state supreme court justices in their paper, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns." A score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology while scores below 0 were more liberal. The state Supreme Court of Iowa was given a campaign finance score (CFscore), which was calculated for judges in October 2012. At that time, Iowa received a score of 0.21. Based on the justices selected, Iowa was the 15th most conservative court. The study was based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges, or—in the absence of elections—the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study was not a definitive label of a justice but rather an academic gauge of various factors.[14]
Noteworthy cases
The following are noteworthy cases heard before the Iowa Supreme Court. For a full list of opinions published by the court, click here. Know of a case we should cover here? Let us know by emailing us.
| • Iowa Supreme Court upholds changes to public-sector collective bargaining rights (2019) (AFSCME Council 61 v. Iowa and Iowa State Education Association v. Iowa) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
|
In two separate rulings issued on May 17, 2019, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld a 2017 law that amended collective bargaining rights for the state's public-sector workforce. The court ruled 4-3 in the state's favor in both cases.[15] In 2017, then-Gov. Terry Branstad (R) signed into law a series of amendments to Iowa's public-sector labor relations law. As a result, collective bargaining units with less than 30 percent public-safety personnel (defined generally as firefighters and police officers) were barred from negotiating insurance, hours, vacations, holidays, overtime, and health and safety issues unless their employers elected to do so. Collective bargaining units exceeding the 30-percent threshold were exempted from these restrictions.[15] The plaintiffs, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 61 (AFSCME Council 61) and the Iowa State Education Association (ISEA), argued the amendments violated their equal protection and associational rights under the state constitution. The defendants were the state of Iowa and the Iowa Public Employment Relations Board. Both cases were filed in state district courts, which ruled against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed these decisions to the state supreme court.[16] In each case, the court ruled 4-3 in the state's favor. In the majority opinion covering both cases, Justice Thomas Waterman wrote: "The 2017 amendments do not infringe on a fundamental right of association. The plaintiffs 'come to us with a problem suitable only for political solution.' The plaintiffs are free to attempt to persuade public employers, such as the State and local governments and school boards, to voluntarily bargain over formerly mandatory terms. The plaintiffs otherwise must look to the ballot box and the elected branches to change this lawfully enacted statute." Justices Susan Christensen, Edward Mansfield, and Christopher McDonald joined Waterman’s opinion.[16] Chief Justice Mark Cady and Justices Brent Appel and David Wiggins dissented. In his dissent, Cady wrote: "[The] Iowa statute ends up treating many similarly situated public employees in Iowa differently based solely on the bargaining unit they belong to and not for the reason the constitution would justify different treatment of public employees. Our constitution requires laws to treat similarly situated people equally unless there is an adequate reason otherwise. In this case, the overinclusiveness and underinclusiveness written into the statute drowned this reason out."[16] | |
| • Authority of the state transportation department to regulate traffic cameras (2018) (City of Des Moines, City of Muscatine, and City of Cedar Rapids v. Iowa Department of Transportation and Iowa Transportation Commission) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
|
On April 27, 2018, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled 6-0 that the state transportation department cannot regulate traffic cameras without specific authorization from the legislature. The case was brought by the cities of Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, and Muscatine. The three cities had all installed traffic cameras on their portions of interstate and other primary highways. In 2015, the state transportation department ordered the cities to turn off some of those cameras, and the cities sued.[17] Writing for the court, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote that agencies are "not free to interpret the general rulemaking authority as granting unlimited rulemaking authority." He said the issue that the case presented was "the reach of the administrative state."[17] Justice Daryl Hecht did not take part in deciding the case.[17] | |
| • Farmer liable for guest's injury during educational tour (2013) (Sallee v. Stewart) | Click for summary→ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
According to a ruling issued on February 15 by the Iowa Supreme Court, farmers who choose to host educational tours for members of the public are not shielded from liability by a 1967 state law intended to promote recreation on private lands.[18] In 2010, Kimberly Sallee filed a negligence suit against dairy farmers Matthew and Diana Stewart. Sallee had served as a chaperone on her daughter's kindergarten class trip to the Stewarts' farm, and broke her wrist and her leg when she fell through a hole in the floor of a hayloft where the Stewarts were letting the children play. The hole had been covered by hay bales, which Matthew Stewart had tested before the children arrived, but the bale over the drop gave way when Sallee stood on it.[19] Sallee's case was originally dismissed by a district court judge, who found that the Stewarts were immune from liability under a 1967 law barring suits against landowners who allow the public onto their property for recreational uses like hunting, hiking, or snowmobiling.[18] This holding was reversed by the Iowa Court of Appeals, which agreed that the Stewarts were shielded from liability as landowners by the 1967 law, but found that they could still be sued in their capacity as tour guides, provided it could be proven that they had acted improperly in that capacity. In the supreme court's 5-2 holding, Justice Brent Appel agreed that Iowa's 1967 law is intended to promote outdoor activities, and wrote that horseback riding and nature study, which the students engaged in at the Stewarts' farm, may have been covered by the law. However, he wrote that
In dissent, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote that the law was designed from its inception to encourage farmers to offer access to and recreational use of their lands. He wrote that the court's decision "turns [the] law upside down."[18] The Iowa Farm Bureau Federation believed that exposing farmers to liability in cases like this would jeopardize educational tours.[18] | ||||
| • Question of gay marriage before the court (2009) (Varnum v. Brien) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
|
In early December 2008, an attorney for six same-sex couples argued before the state supreme court that Iowa's same-sex marriage ban violated his clients’ constitutional rights.[21] On April 3, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously to overturn the state's ban on gay marriage (striking the language from Iowa Code section 595.2). With this ruling, Iowa became the first state in the Midwest to fully recognize gay marriage.[22] The ruling upheld an August 30, 2007, ruling where the Polk County District Court determined the statute was unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Iowa Constitution. The district court initially ordered the county recorder to begin processing marriage licenses for same-sex couples, but stayed the order during the pendency of an appeal.[23] About a year after the rulings, data from the Iowa Department of Public Health said that there were 2,020 recorded marriages of same-sex couples in Iowa between April 27, 2009, and March 31, 2010.[24] | |
| • First Iowa Supreme Court decision (1839) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
|
In Re the Matter of Ralph, July 1839: In the Iowa Supreme Court's first decision, they found that an enslaved person residing in the territory of Iowa could not be returned to a slave owner across state lines (in Missouri) even if they had not paid the agreed-upon amount to secure their freedom in the negotiated time. This ruling came long before the Dred Scott v. Sandford case (1857), which found in favor of the slave holder, and not the slave.[25] | |
History of the court
In 1846, Iowa joined the United States. As with the U.S. Constitution, the state constitution divided the powers of government into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The General Assembly divided the state into four judicial districts, with supreme court justices serving six-year terms and district judges elected for five-year terms. The Iowa Constitution of 1857 increased the number of judicial districts to 11 and allowed the General Assembly to reorganize districts every four years after 1860.[26]
Noteworthy firsts
- In Re the Matter of Ralph was the first decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, made in July 1839.
- Iowa was the first state to admit women to the practice of law in 1869.[25]
Ethics
The Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct sets forth ethical guidelines and principles for the conduct of judges and judicial candidates in Iowa. It consists of four overarching canons:
| “ |
|
” |
The full text of the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct can be found here.
Removal of judges
Judges in Iowa may be removed in one of two ways:
- A judge may be removed via impeachment by a majority vote of the members of the Iowa House of Representatives and then a conviction by a two-thirds vote of the Iowa State Senate.
- The Iowa Judicial Qualification Commission hears allegations of misconducts, investigates, and then submits a recommendation to the Iowa Supreme Court that a judge be removed from the bench, disciplined, or retired.[28]
Courts in Iowa
- See also: Courts in Iowa
In Iowa, there are two federal district courts, a state supreme court, a state court of appeals, and trial courts with both general and limited jurisdiction. These courts serve different purposes, which are outlined in the sections below.
Click a link for information about that court type.
The image below depicts the flow of cases through Iowa's state court system. Cases typically originate in the trial courts and can be appealed to courts higher up in the system.
Party control of Iowa state government
A state supreme court plays a role in the checks and balances system of a state government.
Iowa has a Republican trifecta. The Republican Party controls the office of governor and both chambers of the state legislature.
Iowa Party Control: 1992-2024
Four years of Democratic trifectas • Ten years of Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.
| Year | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Governor | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Senate | D | D | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | S | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| House | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ The salary of the chief justice may be higher than an associate justice.
- ↑ Iowa Judicial Branch, "Supreme Court," accessed September 17, 2021
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Iowa Judicial Branch, "Guide to Iowa's Court System," accessed September 17, 2021
- ↑ Iowa Judicial Branch, "Iowa Supreme Court," accessed September 17, 2021
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Iowa Judicial Nominating Commissions, "State Judicial Nominating Commission," accessed September 13, 2021
- ↑ Iowa Legislature, "CHAPTER 46, 46.1 and 46.2," accessed September 13, 2021
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 National Center for State Courts, "Methods of Judicial Selection: Iowa," September 13, 2021
- ↑ Iowa Legislature, "Judicial Retirement System," updated September 2015
- ↑ Iowa Secretary of State, "2012 GENERAL ELECTION CANVASS SUMMARY," accessed September 20, 2021
- ↑ Iowa Secretary of State, "Official Results Report, 2010 General Election held Tuesday, November 2nd 2010," accessed September 20, 2021
- ↑ Iowa Secretary of State, "State of Iowa Official Canvass Summary, November 4, 2008 General Election," accessed September 20, 2021
- ↑ An Indeterminate score indicates that there is either not enough information about the justice’s partisan affiliations or that our research found conflicting partisan affiliations.
- ↑ The Court Balance Score is calculated by finding the average partisan Confidence Score of all justices on a state supreme court. For example, if a state has justices on the state supreme court with Confidence Scores of 4, -2, 2, 14, -2, 3, and 4, the Court Balance is the average of those scores: 3.3. Therefore, the Confidence Score on the court is Mild Republican. The use of positive and negative numbers in presenting both Confidence Scores and Court Balance Scores should not be understood to that either a Republican or Democratic score is positive or negative. The numerical values represent their distance from zero, not whether one score is better or worse than another.
- ↑ Stanford University, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns," October 31, 2012
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 The Gazette, "Iowa justices uphold controversial collective bargaining changes," May 17, 2019
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 Supreme Court of Iowa, "AFSCME Iowa Council 61 v. Iowa: Decision," May 17, 2019
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Des Moines Register, "Traffic camera restrictions from DOT are tossed by Iowa Supreme Court," April 27, 2018
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 Insurance Journal, "Court: Iowa farmers who host tours can be liable," February 19, 2013
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 Justia, "Sallee v. Stewart," February 15, 2013
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ The Boston Herald, "Iowa Supreme Court considers gay marriage ban," December 9, 2008
- ↑ NBC News, "Iowa Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage," April 3, 2009
- ↑ FindLaw, "VARNUM v. BRIEN," April 3, 2009
- ↑ Globe Gazette, "Same-sex weddings likely part of state marriage increases," July 24, 2010
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 Iowa Judicial Branch, "Civil Rights," accessed September 20, 2021 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "iacourts" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Iowa Judicial Branch, "Iowa Courts History," accessed September 20, 2021
- ↑ Iowa Judicial Branch, "Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct," accessed September 20, 2021
- ↑ National Center For State Courts, "Methods of Judicial Selection: Removal of Judges," accessed September 20, 2021
Federal courts:
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: Northern District of Iowa, Southern District of Iowa • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: Northern District of Iowa, Southern District of Iowa
State courts:
Iowa Supreme Court • Iowa Court of Appeals • Iowa district courts
State resources:
Courts in Iowa • Iowa judicial elections • Judicial selection in Iowa
| ||||||||
