Judicial recognition of rights can trigger retaliation against judges themselves.

Evidence

In California and Iowa, judicial rulings recognizing same-sex marriage prompted a backlash against the state supreme courts. After the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously struck down the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples in Varnum v. Brien (2010), opponents of the ruling first sought to overturn it by state constitutional amendment, but state legislators declined to propose such an amendment. The opponents then concluded that their only recourse for changing the court’s ruling was to change the composition of the lowa Supreme Court. They did so by defeating three justices who were up for retention elections in 2010. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3354

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the course’s treatment of judicial retention elections and judicial independence — the structural vulnerability of elected state judges who expand rights.
• QUESTION: How often have retention elections actually removed state supreme court justices over a single controversial decision? Is Iowa 2010 unique or a recurring pattern?