675 F.3d 1134
8th Cir.2012Background
- Iowa transitioned to merit-based judicial selection in 1962; the Commission screens applicants and forwards three to the Governor.
- The Commission has 15 members: 7 appointive, 7 attorney members elected by Iowa Bar, and 1 senior judge as chair.
- In 2010 three Iowa Supreme Court justices stood for retention and were not retained, creating three vacancies.
- Plaintiffs, Iowa voters, sued alleging the attorney-member election violates equal protection by restricting participation to Iowa Bar members.
- District court dismissed for failure to state a claim; this appeal followed; court affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection challenge feasible? | Carlson argues the attorney-member election violates equal protection. | Wiggins et al. argue rational basis review suffices for a special-interest election. | Yes; rational basis review applied |
| Is the Commission a general or special interest entity? | Plaintiffs contend general governmental function affecting all Iowans. | Defendants contend special limited purpose, disproportionately affecting attorneys. | Special limited purpose |
| Type of scrutiny applicable to attorney-member election? | Election is general-interest, warranting strict scrutiny. | Election is special-interest, warranting rational basis. | Rational basis applies |
| Is rational basis adequate to sustain the election? | Rational basis cannot justify an occupation-based election. | Rational basis supported by state interests in qualified judges and bar representation. | Rational basis satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975) (vote-denial restraints; fundamental rights tests)
- Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (wealth-based voting restrictions invalid)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (one-person, one-vote; population-based apportionment)
- Avery v. Midland Cnty., Tex., 390 U.S. 474 (1968) (special-voter qualifications; general vs special interest)
- Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981) (special interest election; rational relation to objectives)
- Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973) (special limited purpose; disproportionate impact)
- Bradley v. Work, 916 F. Supp. 1446 (S.D. Ind. 1996) (special limited purpose entities; bar members)
- African–American Voting Rights Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. State of Mo., 994 F. Supp. 1105 (E.D. Mo. 1997) (evidence on representation of attorneys in elections)