State of Iowa ex rel. Gary Dickey v. Jason Besler, 954 N.W.2d 425

Background

Judicial nominating commission sent two nominees for a Sixth Judicial District vacancy to the Governor on May 22, 2018; Governor had 30 days to appoint from the list or the chief justice would appoint.
On the 30th day (June 21), the Governor told her chief of staff she had selected Jason Besler but did not notify Besler or issue a public statement; she told Besler and signed his commission on June 25.
The Governor’s chief of staff asked the chief justice’s legal counsel about timing; on July 6 the chief justice’s counsel wrote that the chief justice deferred to and accepted the Governor’s view that the appointment was made on June 21.
County attorney and Attorney General declined to bring quo warranto; citizen Gary Dickey sought leave to sue in quo warranto (filed Nov. 1, 2018).
District court denied leave (ruled appointment timely); Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding Dickey had standing but the dispute was nonjusticiable because both officials with appointment authority accepted the Governor’s appointment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dickey)	Defendant's Argument (Besler/State)	Held
Standing to bring quo warranto	Any citizen who makes demand and is declined by county attorney may seek leave; Dickey (attorney in district) has a colorable public interest	Traditional standing doctrine requires injury in fact; Dickey lacks personal injury	Court: Dickey has standing under quo warranto rule and precedent allowing broader relator interests
Whether court may consider justiciability beyond standing when granting leave	Leave is ministerial; court should only screen for standing and permit equitable adjudication	Court may and should screen merits; leave implies discretion to deny meritless quo warranto	Court: District court may deny leave on nonjusticiability/separation-of-powers grounds; affirmed on that alternative ground
Whether controversy is justiciable (political question / nonjusticiable)	The timeliness question is a legal, judicially manageable issue (Marbury analogy); courts must decide	Appointment timing is entrusted to Governor and, secondarily, chief justice; when both accept the same appointment courts should not intervene	Court: Nonjusticiable — political-question and comity considerations apply because chief justice deferred to Governor; no role for courts when both appointing authorities accept the appointment
Merits: Was the appointment timely made (June 21 vs June 25)?	Governor did not communicate to nominee on June 21; appointment not complete until communication/signing, so chief justice should have appointed	Governor communicated decision to chief of staff on June 21; chief justice accepted that date; thus appointment was timely	Court did not decide merits on appeal (affirmed on nonjusticiability), though district court had ruled the Governor’s appointment was timely

Key Cases Cited

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (U.S. 1803) (discussed as background on when an appointment becomes complete)
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962) (political-question factors for justiciability)
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (U.S. 1969) (textually demonstrable commitment prong of political-question doctrine)
State ex rel. Turner v. Scott, 269 N.W.2d 828 (Iowa 1978) (Iowa precedent finding qualifications nonjusticiable where constitution vests authority in legislative body)
Des Moines Register & Trib. Co. v. Dwyer, 542 N.W.2d 491 (Iowa 1996) (Iowa application of political-question analysis; textual commitment focus)
Iowa Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Envtl. Prot. Comm’n, 850 N.W.2d 403 (Iowa 2014) (de facto officer doctrine can limit timing of challenges to officials)
State v. Hoegh, 632 N.W.2d 885 (Iowa 2001) (separation-of-powers caution against judicial intrusion absent necessity)
State ex rel. Barker, 116 Iowa 96 (Iowa 1902) (early quo warranto standing for taxpayer/relator)
State ex rel. Halbach v. Claussen, 216 Iowa 1079 (Iowa 1933) (appointment validity upheld despite administrative irregularity)