116 3rd St SE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401
Iowa lawmakers reject bill that would have blocked court review of laws’ constitutionality
‘Judges who are not chosen by the people should not have a de facto veto on laws created by the people's elected representatives’
The Gazette offers audio versions of articles using Instaread. Some words may be mispronounced.
DES MOINES — Iowa Senate lawmakers on Tuesday rejected a bill that would block the state judicial branch from weighing in on and determining whether legislation passed by state lawmakers violates the Iowa State Constitution.
Only one of the three lawmakers on a Senate subcommittee signed off to advance Senate Joint Resolution 2002, which would amend the Iowa State Constitution to prohibit the state’s judicial branch from ruling whether a law passed through the legislature is constitutional.
State Sen. Jeff Taylor, of Sioux Center, the bill’s sponsor, said the legislature’s ability to override a governor’s veto but not court rulings on legislation creates an “imbalance” between the judicial and legislative branches.
“I realized that this would significantly change the system that we've been operating on for many decades in our state,” Taylor said. “Judges who are not chosen by the people should not have a de facto veto on laws created by the people's elected representatives. Courts should confine themselves to the interpretation and application of laws.”
Taylor was not on the subcommittee considering the bill, but spoke in the bill's favor at the subcommittee hearing.
The joint resolution includes an exception allowing the Iowa Supreme Court to approve redistricting maps.
In recent years, legislation passed by lawmakers and signed into law has faced lawsuits over constitutionality, including a law passed in 2023 dubbed the “fetal heartbeat bill” banning abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, typically at six weeks. In 2024, it was enacted after the Iowa Supreme Court ruled it was constitutional in a 4-3 decision.
One of the subcommittee members, Democratic Sen. Matt Blake, of Urbandale, who is an attorney, called the legislation a “very dangerous concept” and said taking away the judicial check on legislative authority would “upend the ability of us to be a constitutional democracy.”
“The ability of the judiciary to be a coequal branch is predicated on this idea that they have to be able to review our decisions,” Blake said. “Without the ability to review the laws, the constitution is meaningless.”
Taylor, a political science professor, argued that voters would serve as a guardrail against legislation passed by lawmakers, but Blake expressed concern that limiting judicial checks could cause a slippery slope and give lawmakers the power to pass unconstitutional legislation.
“What if we take the people that disagree with us and tell them they can't vote anymore, and there's no check on that?” Blake asked Taylor. “If the majority decides that the minority doesn't have the right to voice their opinion democratically, how are they supposed to be able to voice their opinion?”
“Well, that is a worst-case scenario, a hypothetical first of all, I don't think will ever happen,” Taylor replied. “I'm not even going to answer that question in terms of that hypothetical because we know that's not going to happen.”
“Do we?” Blake said.
Connie Ryan, representing Iowa Interfaith Alliance, said the judicial branch is also held accountable by voters because judges are appointed by elected officials and are retained in elections.
Sen. Ken Rozenboom, a Republican from Pella who chairs the Iowa Senate State Government Committee, was hesitant to sign on to the bill, adding that he was not sure if he would assign it to the full committee and needed time to consider whether he wanted to provide the second signature needed to advance the resolution. He did not end up signing on to the bill at Tuesday's meeting.
Republican Sen. Jason Schultz, of Schleswig, who chairs the Iowa Senate Judiciary Committee, signed off on the legislation, saying he appreciates the discussion, but added he would not take up the resolution for committee consideration, effectively killing the bill.
“I don't believe this is correct, ready to go to the House or to the people, but this is a, I think, an incredibly important discussion,” Schultz said.
Daily Newsletters