Iowa’s tradition of judicial fairness is at stake

Of all public officials, a judge should be the least susceptible to pressure.

Citizens at both ends of the political spectrum, and everywhere in between, acknowledge the rule of law to be the most basic building block of our system of government. And essential to the rule of law are judges who are free to decide disputes on how they accord with the law, rather than on who the parties involved are.

That’s why Iowa’s system of choosing our unified court judges is so widely respected throughout the nation.

We don’t elect judges in this state; that would subject them to the tyranny of the majority when public passions threaten unpopular people or practices. A responsible judiciary needs to be shielded from threats, either direct or tacit.

There’s another set of judges that deserve the same insulation — the state government’s administrative law judges.

They’re the officials that rule on complaints brought by individuals or organizations when those complainants think they’ve been unjustly or unfairly treated by state government, or by someone or some group that is subject to state regulation.

It’s essential that people, acting either individually or in groups, have confidence that their complaint will be heard impartially and objectively. A system that has even the appearance, or gives even the suspicion, of prejudice taints that confidence.

That’s why Gov. Branstad’s recent announcement concerning the chief administrative law judge of the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals should be reconsidered.

The governor has changed that position from a merit position to an at-will position. That means that the judge holding the position will now be subject to removal by the governor at his discretion, without cause.

The governor, and his staff and advisers, maintain that he is within his rights to make the change, that a state statute gives him that right, and moreover, that at present an administrative judge can serve forever regardless of his or her competence.

With the unified court system, district judges, court of appeals judges and supreme court justices must periodically stand for retention by the voters. No such constraint  now exists for the tenure of administrative court judges, short of moral turpitude, and therefore making them at-will employees is necessary to bring some sort of oversight to the position, so the argument goes.

Opponents of the governor’s action in this case, including his election opponent, State Sen. Jack Hatch, say that a different state statute makes Branstad’s action illegal, and that changing an administrative law judge position to at-will status threatens the objectivity of the position, whether the governor is a Republican or a Democrat.

In this case, I come down on the side of Sen. Hatch.

A governor may have motives and ideals pure as the driven snow, but if I feel aggrieved by the state or a state-regulated business, I don’t want the judge that hears my case to have his job depend on the good auspices of the governor.

The chief administrative judge also determines which of the judges of his or her department will hear the case, making the chief’s position even more important.

There is probably a way to institute some kind of retention requirement for administrative law judges short of making them at-will employees.

Even if the governor’s action is found to be legal, it isn’t the right thing to do.

Iowa’s tradition of judicial fairness is at stake, and deserves to be protected.