Preservation, Primacy, and Process: A More Consistent Approach to State Constitutional Interpretation in Iowa

• Author: Eric M. Hartmann
• Position: J.D., University of Iowa College of Law, 2017; B.A., Drake University, 2014
• Pages: 2265-2290

N1_HARTMANN (DO NOT DELETE) 6/5/2017 10:57 PM

2265

Preservation, Primacy, and Process:

A More Consistent Approach to State

Constitutional Interpretation in Iowa

Eric M. Hartmann*

ABSTRACT: Between 2010–2015, the Iowa Supreme Court decided

multiple cases under article 1, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. However,

the court’s reasons for deciding issues under the Iowa Constitution were less

than principled. The Iowa Supreme Court’s current practice of spontaneously

interpreting the Iowa Constitution raises significant jurisprudential

problems: it does not necessarily require lawyers to adequately argue, brief,

and preserve state constitutional issues for appeal, it does not prioritize federal

or state constitutional claims in any order, and the approach seems arbitrary

on its face. A more principled approach to state constitutional interpretation

could remedy these issues. The primacy approach is an approach to state

constitutional interpretation under which state supreme courts decide issues

under the state constitution when the parties adequately argue and brief the

state constitutional issue. This Note argues that the Iowa Supreme Court

should adopt the primacy approach to state constitutional interpretation to

continue the Court’s role as an important part of the United States’ federalist

system and an imperative protector of Iowans’ individual rights, to improve

the efficiency of state constitutional interpretation, and to improve the process

by which the Iowa Supreme Court reaches issues under the Iowa Constitution.

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 2266

II. DEVELOPMENT AND METHODS OF STATE CONSTITUTIONAL

INTERPRETATION ........................................................................ 2268

A. A STATE COURT’S ROLE IN STATE CONSTITUTIONAL

INTERPRETATION .................................................................. 2270

B. APPROACHES TO STATE CONSTITUTIONAL

INTERPRETATION ............................................................. 2272

* J.D., University of Iowa College of Law, 2017; B.A., Drake University, 2014. Thank you

to Peter Chalik, Elizabeth Heffernan, and Michael Kaufmann for their helpful advice and

suggestions throughout the publication process.

2266 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 102:2265

III. IOWA’S INDEPENDENT APPROACH ............................................... 2274

A. STATE V. OCHOA ................................................................. 2274

B. STATE V. PALS ...................................................................... 2276

C. STATE V. BALDON ................................................................ 2277

D. STATE V. SHORT .................................................................. 2279

E. STATE V. GASKINS ................................................................ 2279

IV. A PRIME SOLUTION ..................................................................... 2282

A. ARGUMENTS FOR THE PRIMACY APPROACH ............................ 2282

B. ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE PRIMACY APPROACH ARE

UNPERSUASIVE ...................................................................... 2284

C. THE SUPPLEMENTAL AND LOCKSTEP APPROACHES ARE

UNPERSUASIVE ...................................................................... 2285

1. The Cons of the Lockstep Approach Are Too

High ............................................................................. 2285

2. The Supplemental Approach is Also

Unpersuasive ............................................................... 2287

D. IMPLEMENTING THE PRIMACY APPROACH .............................. 2288

V. CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 2290

I. INTRODUCTION

In a 1977 Harvard Law Review article, Justice Brennan argued that state

courts1 should independently interpret their state constitutions to maximize

individual liberty.2 Motivated by federalism, Justice Brennan feared the

Supreme Court’s approach to constitutional interpretation would

inadequately protect individual rights.3 Justice Brennan urged state courts to

independently interpret their state constitutions, and not to simply mirror

federal precedent defining the Bill of Rights.4

Other scholars and courts have echoed Justice Brennan’s rationales for

independent state constitutional interpretation. Generally, scholars advocate

for independent interpretation of state constitutions based on principles of

federalism.5 Additionally, they note that state courts have a different role than

the Supreme Court due to their local concerns, and should be mindful of

their role as imperative protectors of individual rights.6 There are three

1. This Note uses the phrase “state courts” to refer to the courts of last resort in each state

that have the power to definitively interpret their state’s constitution.

2. See generally William J. Brennan, Jr., State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights,

90 HARV. L. REV. 489 (1977).

3. Id. at 495.

4. Id. at 501.

5. See infra Part II.

6. See infra Part II.B.