On the reverse side of Iowa's Nov. 3 election ballot, voters will encounter a list of state judges whose seats are up for retention votes this year. Voters are presented with a binary question on each measure — whether the officeholder should remain in their post or be removed.
Attorneys who regularly appear in front of those benches are urging Iowa voters to support retention of all 85 associate and district court judges listed on the ballot, along with three appellate judges — the tier of jurists tasked with reviewing district-level rulings on appeal. Retention decisions for six judges assigned to the 6th Judicial District will rest with residents across a six-county area — Linn, Johnson, Benton, Iowa, Jones, and Tama — whose ballots are included in this election cycle.
On a biennial schedule, the Iowa State Bar Association's Judicial Performance Review takes up the task of assessing those judges who appear on retention ballots. Across ten to twelve performance benchmarks, a pool of 964 Iowa attorneys who took part in this year's evaluation process assessed the sitting judges under review.
Cedar Rapids attorney Tim Semelroth, whose practice covers personal injury and medical malpractice, and who holds membership in the state bar association, described the Judicial Performance Review as a tool designed to give voters a basis for deciding whether an Iowa judge should remain on the bench — with assessments drawn from attorneys who appear before those judges on a weekly basis, covering areas such as fairness, command of the law, and the timeliness of rulings, and taking roughly five minutes to read through. Semelroth clarified that the bar association review is intended to inform voters rather than direct them toward a predetermined outcome on judicial candidates.
Semelroth noted that retention votes carry real weight because judges are the ones who determine prison sentences, child custody arrangements, and whether corporations face accountability for causing harm — and that opting out of that portion of the ballot amounts to a choice in itself, not a neutral act.
Under Iowa's merit-selection system, a judge retains a seat on the bench when more than half of voters cast ballots in favor of keeping that judge — a threshold that reflects the will of the broader electorate rather than any particular faction. Iowa judges were chosen through popular elections until 1962, when the state moved to a selection process built around professional qualifications and political neutrality — an arrangement that a number of other states have not adopted.
Iowa's merit-based selection process routes judicial vacancies through a Nominating Commission — drawn from both the bar and gubernatorial appointees — whose members conduct interviews and evaluate each candidate seeking a seat on the bench. Three finalist names are passed along to the governor by the commission, with the final appointment resting on that official's decision. Judges who take the bench through appointment face a retention vote from the public once they have completed their first full year on the job. Toward the close of every six-year term, their names are placed before voters on the ballot.
Under the Iowa State Bar Association's judicial evaluation process, attorneys submitting ratings are required to demonstrate adequate firsthand familiarity with a given judge's conduct and decisions before their assessments are counted. Attorneys are expected to bring either direct courtroom experience before a given judge or a prior record of practising in that judge's court. Alternatively, a reasonable degree of familiarity with the judge's written decisions and legal thinking — as practised in appellate courts — may serve as an adequate foundation.
Attorneys assess judges across a range of professional qualities — among them their grasp of legal doctrine, courtroom bearing and temperament, how clearly they communicate, whether rulings arrive without undue delay, the readability and calibre of written decisions, and their evenhandedness. Each panellist receives a performance score drawn from a five-point scale, where one denotes very poor work, two falls below average, three meets an adequate standard, four exceeds average expectations, and five reflects outstanding performance.
Among the judges standing for retention this year, a clear majority drew ratings of adequate or better across evaluated areas — including their grasp and application of legal principles, their ability to assess factual disputes, and the overall quality and readability of their written rulings. The bar association's top performance tier went unawarded across the entire bench of judges. Of the judges appearing on Iowa ballots during that election cycle, only one fell short of the 60% retention threshold required to continue serving. A complete version of the review can be found posted on the Iowa State Bar Association's website.
Retention votes for all three Iowa Court of Appeals judges on the ballot ended in passage, with each candidate posting a professional-competence rating above the statewide average — a group that included John Sandy, appointed to the bench in 2024 out of Spirit Lake, who secured his seat with 87.8% support against the 87% threshold required. Representing Schleswig, Julie Schumacher drew 92.7 percent of the vote after taking office through a 2019 appointment. Appointed to her post in 2019, Sharon Soorholtz Greer — a Marshalltown resident — recorded an approval rating of 90.9 percent. Those names appear on every ballot cast throughout Iowa.
Retention votes cast for the six judges on the 6th Judicial District bench in Eastern Iowa this cycle landed across a spread running from a low of 73 percent to a high of 98 percent. Drawn from responses by 123 attorneys, the retention figure attached to district court judge Jason Besler — seated on the bench since 2018 — landed at 95.1 percent. Drawn from a pool of 82 attorneys, Fisher secured an 81.7 percent approval rating following his 2024 appointment. Appointed to his post in 2024, Harris drew a 98.6 percent approval rating across evaluations submitted by 70 lawyers.
Among the three 6th District associate district judges whose performance numbers were tallied, Angie Johnston — placed on the bench by appointment in 2007 — drew a rating of 97.9 percent from a pool of 48 attorneys surveyed. A rating of 98.3% — drawn from responses by 59 lawyers — attached to Jones following the 2007 appointment. A rating of 73.9 percent, drawn from responses by 23 lawyers, attached to Kristen Denniger Schneider following her 2025 appointment.
