Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Thomas Waterman
2011 - Present
2028
14
Thomas Waterman is a judge of the Iowa Supreme Court. He assumed office in 2011. His current term ends on December 31, 2028.
Waterman ran for re-election for judge of the Iowa Supreme Court. He won in the retention election on November 3, 2020.
Waterman first became a member of the court by appointment. He was appointed by Republican Gov. Terry Branstad in 2011. Waterman, Bruce B. Zager, and Edward Mansfield were all appointed after three former justices lost their retention elections following a 2009 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa.[1] To read more about judicial selection in Iowa, click here.
In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country. As part of this study, we assigned each justice a Confidence Score describing our confidence in the degree of partisanship exhibited by the justices' past partisan behavior, before they joined the court.[2] Waterman received a confidence score of Mild Republican.[3] Click here to read more about this study.
Biography
Waterman received a bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College in 1981 and his J.D., Order of the Coif, from the University of Iowa College of Law in 1984.[4]
Waterman worked in private practice at Lane & Waterman LLP until his appointment to the state supreme court. He also co-edited Defense Update, a publication of the Iowa Defense Counsel Association. As of July 2021, he was an elected member of the American Law Institute.[4]
Elections
2020
- See also: Iowa Supreme Court elections, 2020
Iowa Supreme Court
Thomas Waterman was retained to the Iowa Supreme Court on November 3, 2020 with 69.9% of the vote.
Retention Vote |
% |
Votes |
|||
| ✔ | Yes |
69.9
|
809,058 | ||
No |
30.1
|
348,665 | |||
Total Votes |
1,157,723 | ||||
|
|
2012
- See also: Iowa judicial elections, 2012
Waterman was retained in the general election on November 6, 2012, receiving 74.8% of the vote.[5]
Campaign themes
2020
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Thomas Waterman did not complete Ballotpedia's 2020 Candidate Connection survey.
Analysis
Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship (2020)
Last updated: June 15, 2020
In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country as of June 15, 2020.
The study presented Confidence Scores that represented our confidence in each justice's degree of partisan affiliation. This was not a measure of where a justice fell on an ideological spectrum, but rather a measure of how much confidence we had that a justice was or had been affiliated with a political party. The scores were based on seven factors, including but not limited to party registration.[6]
The five resulting categories of Confidence Scores were:
- Strong Democrat
- Mild Democrat
- Indeterminate[7]
- Mild Republican
- Strong Republican
This justice's Confidence Score, as well as the factors contributing to that score, is presented below. The information below was current as of June 2020.
Thomas
Waterman
Iowa
- Partisan Confidence Score:
Mild Republican - Judicial Selection Method:
Assisted appointment through hybrid judicial nominating commission - Key Factors:
- Donated less than $2,000 to Republican candidates
- Appointed by a Republican governor
Partisan Profile
Details:
Waterman donated $1,600 to Republican candidates and organizations. He was appointed by Gov. Terry E. Branstad (R) in 2011.
Other Scores:
In a 2012 study of campaign contributions, Waterman received a campaign finance score of 1.03, indicating a conservative ideological leaning.
Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores (2012)
In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan ideology of state supreme court justices. They created a scoring system in which a score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology, while scores below 0 were more liberal.
Waterman received a campaign finance score of 1.03, indicating a conservative ideological leaning. This was more conservative than the average score of 0.21 that justices received in Iowa.
The study was based on data from campaign contributions by the judges themselves, the partisan leaning of those who contributed to the judges' campaigns, or, in the absence of elections, the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study was not a definitive label of a justice, but an academic summary of various relevant factors.[8]
Noteworthy cases
AFSCME Council 61 v. Iowa and Iowa State Education Association v. Iowa (2019)
In two separate rulings issued on May 17, 2019, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld a 2017 law that amended collective bargaining rights for the state's public-sector workforce. The court ruled 4-3 in the state's favor in both cases.[9]
In 2017, then-Gov. Terry Branstad (R) signed into law a series of amendments to Iowa's public-sector labor relations law. As a result, collective bargaining units with less than 30 percent public-safety personnel (defined generally as firefighters and police officers) were barred from negotiating insurance, hours, vacations, holidays, overtime, and health and safety issues unless their employers elected to do so. Collective bargaining units exceeding the 30-percent threshold were exempted from these restrictions.[9]
The plaintiffs, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 61 (AFSCME Council 61) and the Iowa State Education Association (ISEA), argued the amendments violated their equal protection and associational rights under the state constitution. The defendants were the state of Iowa and the Iowa Public Employment Relations Board. Both cases were filed in state district courts, which ruled against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed these decisions to the state supreme court.[10]
In each case, the court ruled 4-3 in the state's favor. In the majority opinion covering both cases, Justice Thomas Waterman wrote: "The 2017 amendments do not infringe on a fundamental right of association. The plaintiffs 'come to us with a problem suitable only for political solution.' The plaintiffs are free to attempt to persuade public employers, such as the State and local governments and school boards, to voluntarily bargain over formerly mandatory terms. The plaintiffs otherwise must look to the ballot box and the elected branches to change this lawfully enacted statute." Justices Susan Christensen, Edward Mansfield, and Christopher McDonald joined Waterman’s opinion.[10]
Chief Justice Mark Cady and Justices Brent Appel and David Wiggins dissented. In his dissent, Cady wrote: "[The] Iowa statute ends up treating many similarly situated public employees in Iowa differently based solely on the bargaining unit they belong to and not for the reason the constitution would justify different treatment of public employees. Our constitution requires laws to treat similarly situated people equally unless there is an adequate reason otherwise. In this case, the overinclusiveness and underinclusiveness written into the statute drowned this reason out."[10]
State supreme court judicial selection in Iowa
- See also: Judicial selection in Iowa
The seven justices on the Iowa Supreme Court are selected through the assisted appointment method. When a vacancy occurs on the supreme court, the State Judicial Nominating Commission submits a list of three potential nominees to the governor, who appoints one to serve as a judge. The commission consists of 17 members—nine appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Iowa State Senate and eight (two from each congressional district) elected by lawyers.[11]
Iowa law states that no more than a simple majority of the state nominating commission may be of the same gender.[12]
Newly appointed judges serve for one year after their appointment. They must then compete in a yes-no retention election (occurring during the regularly scheduled general election) if they wish to remain on the court. They then serve eight-year terms.[13]
Qualifications
To serve on this court, a judge must be:[13]
- licensed to practice law in the state;
- a member of the Iowa bar;
- a resident of the state, district, or county to which they are appointed; and
- under the age of 72.
Note: Retirement at 72 is mandatory, though older judges may apply to become a senior judge. Senior judges must work a minimum of 13 weeks a year and are to receive a monthly retirement annuity and an annual stipend. They must retire at age 78 (or 80, if reappointed by the supreme court for additional one-year terms).[14]
Chief justice
The chief justice of the supreme court is elected by peer vote and serves a two-year term.[13]
Vacancies
If a midterm vacancy occurs on the court, the seat is filled as it normally would be if the vacancy occurred at the end of a judge's term. A judicial nominating commission recommends qualified candidates to the governor and the governor selects a successor from that list. The new appointee serves for at least one year and then stands for retention.[11]
The map below highlights how vacancies are filled in state supreme courts across the country.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Quad-City Times, "Q-C attorney named to Iowa Supreme Court," February 23, 2011
- ↑ We calculated confidence scores by collecting several data points such as party registration, donations, and previous political campaigns.
- ↑ The five possible confidence scores were: Strong Democrat, Mild Democrat, Indeterminate, Mild Republican, and Strong Republican.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Iowa Judicial Branch, "Justice Thomas D. Waterman," accessed July 14, 2021
- ↑ Iowa Secretary of State, "2012 GENERAL ELECTION CANVASS SUMMARY," accessed July 14, 2021
- ↑ The seven factors were party registration, donations made to partisan candidates, donations made to political parties, donations received from political parties or bodies with clear political affiliation, participation in political campaigns, the partisanship of the body responsible for appointing the justice, and state trifecta status when the justice joined the court.
- ↑ An Indeterminate score indicates that there is either not enough information about the justice’s partisan affiliations or that our research found conflicting partisan affiliations.
- ↑ Stanford University, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns," October 31, 2012
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 The Gazette, "Iowa justices uphold controversial collective bargaining changes," May 17, 2019
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Supreme Court of Iowa, "AFSCME Iowa Council 61 v. Iowa: Decision," May 17, 2019
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Iowa Judicial Nominating Commissions, "State Judicial Nominating Commission," accessed September 13, 2021
- ↑ Iowa Legislature, "CHAPTER 46, 46.1 and 46.2," accessed September 13, 2021
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 National Center for State Courts, "Methods of Judicial Selection: Iowa," September 13, 2021
- ↑ Iowa Legislature, "Judicial Retirement System," updated September 2015
| ||||||||||
Federal courts:
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: Northern District of Iowa, Southern District of Iowa • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: Northern District of Iowa, Southern District of Iowa
State courts:
Iowa Supreme Court • Iowa Court of Appeals • Iowa district courts
State resources:
Courts in Iowa • Iowa judicial elections • Judicial selection in Iowa
