Chief Justice Marsha Ternus: an inside look into the tenure of Iowa's former chief justice.

• Author: Cardinale, Jessie R.
• Position: Chief Judge Lawrence H. Cooke Fifth Annual State Constitutional Commentary Symposium - Testimonial

1. INTRODUCTION

   Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, the first female chief justice of the Iowa Supreme Court, is one of the nation's most admired and respected jurists. Although unsuccessful in her state's recent retention election, Ternus exemplifies what it means to be a chief justice through her platform of reforming Iowa's child welfare system, updating the court to an electronic records management system, and improving the Iowa judiciary overall.

   This paper will examine Ternus' voting trends during her time as Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court, from September 2006 to December 2010. In Part II, the Chief Justice's upbringing and career path will be discussed. (1) Part III will provide a brief overview of the history and composition of the Iowa Supreme Court. (2) Then, in Part IV, Ternus' voting patterns will be studied in two important ways. (3) First, opinions authored by Ternus will be reviewed. Here, split decisions will be scrutinized more closely. Then, the sole dissent authored by Ternus as Chief Justice will be examined. Next, cases regarding child welfare will be evaluated. Additionally, comparisons will be drawn in terms of the number of child welfare cases decided on Ternus' bench versus those decided on Chief Justice Lavorato's bench, Ternus' immediate predecessor. The methodology for each portion will be explained in the footnotes. An emphasis will be placed on cases that most accurately depict areas where the Chief Justice has a particular interest. Finally, Part V will present the findings of the voting analysis. (4)

2. BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

   Prior to delving into Chief Justice Ternus' voting patterns, it is helpful to become acquainted with her upbringing and career path. A native of Iowa, Ternus was raised on a farm in northern Benton County and graduated from Vinton High School in 1969. (5) She later earned her bachelor of arts degree at the University of Iowa in 1972 and shortly thereafter, in 1977, received her juris doctor from Drake University. (6) While in law school, Ternus served as the Editor-in-Chief of the Drake Law Review. (7)

   Following graduation, Ternus worked at the law firm of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave for sixteen years, where her primary practice was civil litigation and insurance law. (8) While in private practice, she held positions on the Board of Governors of the Iowa State Bar Association, the Iowa Jury Instructions Committee, and the Board of Directors of the Polk County Legal Aid Society. (9) She also served as the President of the Polk County Bar Association and on the Drake Law School Board of Counselors. (10)

   In 1993, Ternus was appointed to the Iowa Supreme Court by Republican Governor Terry Branstad. (11) She became Chief Justice when her colleagues selected her for the position in 2006. (12) Ternus is the first woman to serve as Chief Justice in the over 170-year history of the Iowa Supreme Court. (13) As Chief Justice, Ternus focused on improving court oversight of child welfare cases. (14) She now chairs the State Children's Justice Council, which consists of representatives of the judiciary, state agencies, and private entities working together to improve the child welfare system. (15) In 2009, she also served on a planning committee which organized a national summit on the protection of children. (16)

   Recently, Chief Justice Ternus made headlines for the retention elections that occurred on November 2, 2010, when she was removed from her position, along with three other Iowa Supreme Court Justices. (17) This is the first time in Iowa's history that justices have been removed during a retention election. (18) The reason for this unfortunate result has been attributed to the Court's holding in Varnum v. Brien, which legalized same-sex marriage. (19) This unanimous decision, though rendered in a constitutionally sound manner, spurred a campaign to remove those justices up for reelection. (20)

   Following their removal, Ternus along with Justices Baker and Streit stated that they "hope Iowans will continue to support Iowa's merit selection system ... [which] helps ensure that judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution and nothing else. (21)" Though her career ended prematurely, Ternus certainly left her mark on the Iowa Supreme Court during her time as Chief Justice.

3. THE IOWA SUPREME COURT

   In order to gain a better perspective of Chief Justice Ternus' voting pattern, it is helpful to look at her voting record in comparison to the rest of the bench. First, it is important to note Iowa's rich constitutional history. Prior to statehood, Iowa had a legal system. (22) At times, this Court rendered decisions that were more than one hundred years ahead of similar rulings by the United States Supreme Court. (23) Some of these landmark rulings included the prohibition of slavery in 1839, the legalization of inter-racial marriage in 1846, and granting women custody rights in 1867.24

   Today, the Iowa Supreme Court continues its tradition of upholding individual rights and liberties. The Court consists of seven justices who elect the Chief Justice. (25) The Court under Ternus was composed of Justices Brent R. Appel; David L. Baker; Mark S. Cady; Daryl L. Hecht; Michael J. Streit; and David S. Wiggins. Following the retention election, Justices Streit and Baker were removed from the bench, and Chief Justice Ternus was replaced by Justice Cady, the author of the Varnum v. Brien decision. (26) Upon assuming this position, Justice Cady stated that his "foremost concern will be to do all [he] can to support the work of Iowa's high caliber court system and to expand the public's access to justice." (27)

4. VOTING ANALYSIS: MAJORITY OPINIONS AUTHORED BY CHIEF JUSTICE TERNUS

   1. Majority Opinions Authored from September 2006 to December 2010

      From September 2006 to December 2010, Chief Justice Ternus authored 120 decisions. (28) Of these 120 decisions, all were unanimous except for two. (29) Therefore, of the decisions authored by Ternus, the Court was unanimous ninety-eight percent of the time.

      [FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

      1. Majority Opinions: Ideological Breakdown

         Figure 2 below depicts the ideological breakdown of Chief Justice Ternus' majority opinions. Criminal cases pertain to the rights of a criminal defendant, including such issues as reasonableness of searches and seizures, and the admissibility of evidence. Workers' Compensation cases involve wage replacement and medical benefits for employees who are injured in the course of employment. Ineffective assistance of counsel cases pertain to legal malpractice suits where an attorney caused harm to his or her client by failing to adequately represent the client.

         [FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

      2. Split Decisions: Ideological Breaks

         Although there were only two split decisions, it is important to review these cases to determine on what matters the justices were unable to reach consensus. Coincidentally, both cases involved controversial issues; more specifically, the cases involved indecent exposure and ethical violations under the rules of professional responsibility.

         First, in State v. Isaac, the Court reviewed a case in which the district court convicted the defendant of indecent exposure after a police officer caught him masturbating outside a woman's bedroom window. (30) Here, the Court was asked to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to convict this individual of indecent exposure. (31) To be held liable, Ternus stressed that the defendant not only had to expose himself, but also needed to have a sexual motive. (32) Relying heavily on the statute, the Court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for indecent exposure, as no facts supported the premise that he had exposed his genitals "for the purpose of arousing or satisfying the sexual desires of himself or the officer." (33) Ternus even states that to interpret the statute in the same manner as the lower court would be tantamount to "ignor[ing] the statutory requirement" at issue entirely. (34)

         Justice Streit, dissenting from the majority decision, claimed that the facts of the case are straightforward and clearly illustrate that the defendant's actions were intended for sexual purposes. (35) Streit also maintained that the defendant should still be held accountable even though the particular person who saw his exposed genitals was a police officer and not the intended victim. (36) Streit concluded his dissent by stating that "it is sometimes necessary to think like a criminal to catch a criminal," and...