The “No Wiggins” campaign in Iowa fights on with Election Day coming closer and closer.

Will Iowans vote “no” to a judge, or “yes”?

In the 2010 elections, three Iowa Supreme Court justices were voted not to be retained, making state history as the first time a justice had not been retained since the practice was established in Iowa in 1962.

This year, the issue of judicial retention has been reignited with Justice David S. Wiggins on the ballot.

Wiggins and the three justices voted out in 2010 make up four of the seven justices who make same-sex marriage legal in Iowa with the Varnum v. Brien case of 2009.

As with the 2010 election, the campaign to oust Wiggins is being run by The Family Leader, a politically-charged religious organization.

In 2011, The Family Leader asked the remaining justices, including Wiggins, to resign their positions. However, all of the justices refused.

Iowans for Freedom, a branch project off of The Family Leader, launched a statewide tour in late September this year with speakers Rick Santorum and Louisiana Gov. Bob Jindal. The goal was to inform voters of the issue and persuade them to vote against the retention of Wiggins.

Greg Baker, executive director of Iowans for Freedom, said the group is focusing on convincing the voters in this election, rather than educating them. 

He said that because of the campaign in 2010, “people understand judicial retention and where it is on the ballot.”

Baker cited the group’s purpose through the campaign as getting rid of an activist judge. 

He said Wiggins received  only 63 percent approval from the Iowa State Bar Association, a group made up of the lawyers with whom Wiggins works.

This number is an historically low rating.

The lowest rating received by any other judge up for retention with Wiggins this election is 92 percent and with such low peer approval, Iowans for Freedom questions Wiggins’ reliability.

Alongside the bus tour, Iowans for Freedom has spread their “No Wiggins” campaign through major media outlets in Iowa and online. 

However, their message to rid the judiciary system of activist judges has met much opposition.

Many believe this campaign is adding too much political influence into the judiciary system, a place where it does not belong.

Warren Blumenfeld, associate professor at Iowa State, said: “I fault the entire process. The judicial system should be apolitical.”

Blumenfeld believes that with people’s vote determining the job retention of the judicial branch, courts will begin to make decisions based on popular opinion rather than upholding the state constitution and protecting minorities.

“Human and civil rights must not be up for popular vote,” Blumenfeld said.

Many are comparing the Varnum v. Brien case to the famous Brown v. Board of Education. 

Blumenfeld stated that if it had been up to popular vote, separate but equal would have stayed intact, and the same can be said about the decision to legalize same-sex marriage in Iowa.

Blumenfeld is strongly against the campaign put forth by Iowans for Freedom and The Family Leader.

“They paint Justice Wiggins as some radical extremist,” he said. Blumenfeld also said he disapproves of the “scare and snare” tactics.

This issue of judicial retention in the upcoming election will come down to people’s opinions about what role the judiciary branch should play in our government and the influence they believe the public should have within it.

The three other Supreme Court justices on the ballot for retention this election are Edward Mansfield, Thomas D. Waterman and Bruce B. Zager. All three are the new Supreme Court Justices put in place after the 2010 elections.