Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention

The Democrats didn't have a meaningful primary, and no one cared

Kenan Thompson

Project 2025: Voters oppose the far-right playbook

Iowa abandons nonpartisan judicial selections, imperiling its 'good government' reputation

Our Staff
By Our StaffMay 16, 2019
Our Staff
The Fulcrum staff.
See More Writings by author

Iowa was the first state to take partisan politics out of redistricting. Now it's the latest state to restore partisan politics to the judicial selection process.

The Republican-run legislature pushed through a bill this month giving the governor a dominant hand in picking judges and justices to the state's top courts, undoing the essentially nonpartisan system that's been in place for six decades.

That old law's adoption in the 1960s, and the decision starting back in 1980 to fight partisan gerrymandering by turning over the drawing of electoral boundaries to anonymous bureaucrats, earned Iowa plaudits as one of the most democracy-reform-minded states.

That reputation is now challenged by the new judicial selection law, which a group of Democrats in the state House sued to block on Wednesday.

The law permits GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds and her successors to make nine partisan appointments to the 17-member commission that drives the selection of judges for the state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. It also limits the term of the state's chief justice to two years. The lawsuit says the new statute violates the separation of powers required by changing the terms for the chief justice, who has been elected by the Supreme Court's members to serve for as long as eight years.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Until now, the panel had equal numbers chosen by the governor and the Iowa bar, plus one state Supreme Court justice.

"Iowa has been at the top of the class, a model for the other 49 states to look up to on our merit-based selection process," former Democratic legislator Bob Rush told the Sioux City Journal. "This shady deal," he said, "was "a backroom deal to put politics back into the selection of judges."

Latest news

Donald Trump at a podium
Election 2024

Contending with whiteness in 2024

Read More

House members taking the oath of office in the chamber

Members of the House of Representatives are sworn in by Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Jan. 6, 2023.

Elizabeth Frantz/For The Washington Post via Getty Images

Call them ‘representatives,’ because that’s what they are − not ‘congressmen’ or ‘congresswomen’

Wirls is a professor of politics at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

For most of the nation’s history, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have been addressed as “Congressman” or “Congresswoman.” By contrast, a senator is referred to as, well, “Senator.”

These gendered terms for House members dominate in journalism, everyday conversation and among members of Congress.

The name Congress refers to the entire national legislature, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Gender identity aside, congressman and congresswoman are fundamentally inaccurate terms.

Keep ReadingShow less
Suzette Brooks Masters
Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation

‘Democracy is something we have to fight for’: A conversation with Suzette Brooks Masters

Berman is a distinguished fellow of practice at The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, co-editor of Vital City, and co-author of "Gradual: The Case for Incremental Change in a Radical Age." This is the seventh in a series of interviews titled "The Polarization Project."

Is polarization in the United States laying the groundwork for political violence? That is not a simple question to answer.

Affective polarization — the tendency of partisans to hate those who hold opposing political views — does seem to be growing in the United States. But as a recent report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace makes clear, “many European countries show affective polarization at about the same level as that of the United States, but their democracies are not suffering as much, suggesting that something about the US political system, media, campaigns, or social fabric is allowing Americans’ level of emotional polarization to be particularly harmful to US democracy.”

Suzette Brooks Masters is someone whose job it is to think about threats to American democracy. The leader of the Better Futures Project at the Democracy Funders Network, Masters recently spent months studying innovations in resilient democracy from around the world. The resulting report, “Imagining Better Futures for American Democracy,” argues that one way to help protect American democracy from “authoritarian disruption” is to engage in a process of “reimagining our governance model for the future.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
The start of the 2024 men's 100 meter dash

"Notably, both in sports and in society, a prerequisite to fair and impartial competition is agreement and acceptance of a set of rules and regulations," writes Radwell.

Tim Clayton/Corbis via Getty Images

A 'just' meritocracy – the keystone to the American dream

Radwell is the author of "American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation” and serves on the Business Council at Business for America. This is the 12th entry in what was intended to be a 10-part series on the American schism in 2024.

I’m not sure if it is due to the recent triumph of the Paris Olympics or voters’ nascent love affair with Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, but the spirit of sports competition has taken center stage of late. Watching our young athletes reach their Olympic dreams and being introduced to Coach Walz seem connected in some mysterious but heartwarming way.

Behind every Olympic medal lies a story of young budding talent buttressed by a coterie of adults who chart the course. And in Walz, we recognize someone who has unmistakably demonstrated a profound developmental impact with kids both on the field and in the classroom.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pete Buttigieg

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg speaks at the Democratic National Committee.

Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Mayor Pete didn’t say ‘gay’

Tseng is an equity strategy program manager at Google, a Paul and Daisy Soros fellow, and a public voices fellow of The OpEd Project.

In his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg never said the word “gay.” Not once. He didn’t mention his husband, Chasten, by name or even use the term “husband.” He never mentioned that he is a man who loves another man, nor did he give any explanation of why his family seemed like an impossibility just 25 years ago, beyond saying that it did.

In fact, the only thing that might have tipped you off about his sexuality was his mention of pro wrestling, a very queer sport. The omission of any aspect of his gayness made me long for a much broader pool of candidates onto whom I could project my hopes and dreams as a gay man.

Keep ReadingShow less
Flag of Ukraine alongside flag of United States

Flags of Ukraine and the United States

Alex Wong/Getty Images

In swing states, D’s and R’s agree U.S. should continue aid to Ukraine

Amid debates about U.S. international engagement, a new public consultation survey conducted in six swing states by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation found widespread bipartisan support for the United States continuing to provide military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

Majorities of both Republicans and Democrats support the U.S. upholding the principle of collective security by helping to protect nations that are under attack; continuing to be a member of NATO; and continuing to abide by the longstanding international ban on nuclear testing.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2024