Adam B Sullivan

Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins was famously silent in the fight last November about whether he should keep his job.

In Iowa, citizens vote on whether to retain judges and conservative activists had launched a “No” campaign against Wiggins for his part in the 2010 decision to throw out Iowa’s traditional marriage law. Wiggins ended up earning retention, but he didn’t play a part in that, insisting judges in Iowa shouldn’t campaign.

He visited high schoolers in Iowa City last week and brushed me off when I tried to ask about last year’s retention election: “I don’t talk about that. … It’s done and done. I didn’t campaign before and I’m not campaigning now. People voted the way they did and that’s how it turned out.”

He opened up a little bit when students asked about the election. He didn’t talk about gay marriage specifically, but he generally rejected the idea that majorities can restrict rights: “That’s probably what this last retention election was about and the one before: how can this unelected court go against the will of the majority and decide an issue that should be left up to the majority? The problem is that’s the whole function of a court — to make sure they don’t take away your rights.”

Later, he offered another reason he wasn’t involved in his retention election: “If the people of Iowa don’t retain me, I’ll go practice law. I can actually make more money practicing law.”

Video: Watch Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins talk about judicial retention

Next month Johnson County will vote on whether to borrow more than $40 million to build a new “justice center” with more courtrooms and 195 jail beds — with plans to add more later.

A similar measure already failed back in November. One reason is concern over racial disparity in the local justice system. Similar to national trends, non-whites are disproportionately represented in jail. This chart shows the disparity: minorities are 14 percent of the local population, but 44 percent of jail usage.

The issue presents a chicken-or-egg situation: Opponents of the project say they won’t support a new jail until the racial disparity is addressed; supporters say they need more space and a nicer facility in order to address such problems.

This is local activist Donald Baxter, explaining part of his opposition to the jail proposal:

There have been no changes asked of local policing authorities. While the “yes” side has finally acknowledged the issue of race and arrests and the resulting disparity of population in the jail, they have made no concrete plans as to how to address this issue.

On the other hand, here’s left-leaning blogger John Deeth explaining why he’s sympathetic, but why the jail vote isn’t the time or place:

I share the gut-level frustration at bad city policing policy, accepted by an indifferent city council, and state and federal drug laws that lag behind public opinion. I look forward to working with opponents at the right time and in the right elections. … But in-house treatment and batterer’s classes can’t be expanded without space, and can’t be offered to the prisoners who are shipped out.