Meeting Public Comments

Jane Robinette

I urge you to oppose HF 109. This bill seeks to delay for one year any supreme court decision that invalidates existing Iowa law or that "has the effect of creating new law." (This pretty much defines what the supreme court does since anything that is clear under the law doesn't need the court's input.) And if the court issues such a decision, the bill gives the legislature the power to compel the attendance of certain justices at a public hearing to discuss and justify their decision, after which the justices would be allowed to change their votes. It also gives the legislature the right to overturn such a decision by a 2/3 vote of the house and senate.In 2011, the late Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady gave a remarkable state of the judiciary address to the legislature. He spoke about the role of the courts visavis the legislature, and also reaffirmed the necessity of the court's judicial review of laws passed by the legislature. I can find no better words than his to explain why this bill is dangerous.Justice Cady said: "In our government, courts are legal institutionsnot political institutions. When a person comes before a judge, that person expects the judge to be neutral and to render a ruling based upon the proven facts of the case and applicable legal principlesnot based upon public opinion.... 'or fear of criticism.'"...."Unlike our political institutions, courts serve the law, not the interests of constituents, ...not the demands of special interest groups, ...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. Chief Justice William Rehnquist called the independence that allows judges to serve the law 'the crown jewel of our system of justice.'" ...."Upholding the constitution is the most important function of courts. The duty of courts to review the constitutionality of laws is known as judicial review and is one of our most basic responsibilities. Judicial review has been recognized as the responsibility of courts in this country for well over two hundred years." ...."The power of courts to review the constitutionality of a statute was promptly settled in 1803 by the United States Supreme Courtin Marbury vs. Madison." ...."In 1849, the Iowa Supreme Court issued its first decision that protected the constitutional rights of an Iowan by invalidating a statute enacted by the legislature. In this case, the court stated it was 'a settled principle' in this country that courts have the power, 'as a matter of right and duty, to declare every act of the legislature made in violation of the constitution, or any provision of it, null and void.'" ...."Judicial review is so commonplace that, since 1846, litigants in Iowa in roughly 1000 cases have asked the Iowa Supreme Court to protect their constitutional rights by invalidating a state law. During this same time, the court has declared acts of the legislature unconstitutional in over 150 cases." ...."As far back as 1883, the Iowa Supreme Court made it clear that even unpopular rulings could not simply be suspended in time to await any future legislative action. In its decision, the court said that, if courts could be coerced by popular majorities to disregard the constitution any point in time, 'constitutions would become mere ropes of sand and there would be an end of...constitutional freedom.'"This bill is dangerous, disrespectful, and strikes at the very heart of our form of government. Vote no on HF 109.

Mary Kay Wik

Civics 101: Three branches of government. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, rewrite it!

Mary Wolfe [HD98]

Cate Koeppen

We have three coequal branches of government. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, you need to rewrite it.Oppose this bill.

Richard Brown

Oppose this with extreme prejudice!!! Kill it dead!

Christopher Taylor

An argument against this kind of legislative overreach was made over two hundred years ago by the Founding Father Alexander Hamilton. He wrote, in Federalist No. 78, "It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that 'there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers'...The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body." A fair appreciation of the founding principles of this state and this nation should compel members of this subcommittee and the General Assembly to vote against this bill.

John Olsen

I strongly urge to oppose this bill. We already have a method to overturn Supreme Court decisions. It is called a constitutional amendment. Yes, it is long and arduous but it is meant that way to protect against the shift of political winds. Plus, Iowa voters get the final say which is the way it should be. We have three ooequal branches of government and this bill would destroy that balance. Please oppose this bill.

Pete McRoberts [ACLU of Iowa ]

We strongly oppose this bill on separation of powers grounds. The constitution works and we should protect it. The coequal branches of government, sometimes in collaboration with each other, sometimes in competition with each other, are critical for protecting minority rights, including those people with unpopular opinions even. At one point or the other, we *all* have unpopular opinions. So, the Court protects us all in this respect. We strongly recommend Members of the Legislature to preserve, protect and defend the Iowa Constitution, so we can all have the freedom it provides. Thank you.