AP: “A federal appeals court on Monday rejected a legal challenge to the Iowa commission that nominates candidates to serve on the Iowa Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by conservatives that challenged the Judicial Nominating Commission’s makeup. The lawsuit was brought as the panel was vetting applicants to replace three justices ousted by voters after the Iowa Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriages legal.”

The very interesting opinion is here (via Howard). A snippet, applying the Salyer Land exception:

In sum, we conclude the Commission is a “special limited purpose” entity for its sole function is to select the most qualified candidates for judicial appointments and forward the names of these candidates to the Governor for a final appointment. This narrow function has a disproportionate effect on a definable group of constituents—the members of the Iowa Bar—over other voters in the State of Iowa. Therefore, the election of the attorney members of the Commission is an election of special interest. See Salyer, 410 U.S. at 728 (stating a special interest election involves an entity with a “special limited purpose . . . and [a] disproportionate effect” on a definable group of constituents over others). Voter qualifications in special interest elections are subject to rational rather than strict scrutiny review. See Ball, 451 U.S. at 371. Accordingly, to survive Plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge, Iowa must only show its system of election for the attorney members of the Commission is rationally related to Iowa’s legitimate interests. See id.