Dana Oxley
Non-Partisan | Iowa
Candidate Profile*
Activist
*Additional information appears below for educational purposes; however, only data received prior to the candidate deadline was considered during Panel Evaluation.
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Dana Oxley
Party
Non-Partisan
Election Year
2022
Election
General
Race
Supreme Court (retention)
Incumbent
Yes
Links
EDUCATION
Candidate did not provide
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
Race
ENDORSEMENTS*
*These endorsements were received after the deadline and were not considered in the Panel Evaluations and are for additional educational purposes only.
CONSERVATIVE (1)
*Judge Voter Guide
OTHER INFORMATION
Justice Dana Oxley was appointed to the Iowa Supreme Court in 2020 by Kim Reynolds(R). Prior she worked as an attorney for Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, P.L.C. in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Notable cases:
Johnston v. Iowa Department of Transportation (2021): Justice Oxley wrote the majority opinion, which held that deferred judgement qualified as a “final conviction” under Iowa Code section 321.209 for the purpose of mandatory driver’s license revocation (2). The opinion affirmed the precedent of Schilling, which held that the meaning of conviction may vary depending on the purpose of the statute (7-8). The court argued in response to the dissent that laws may sometimes contain redundancies and that it is wrong to conclude that simply because deferred judgement was referred to in a separate section from convictions that it must not be included under the same umbrella (9-10).
State v. Struve (2021): Justice Oxley wrote the majority opinion, which held that a driver holding a phone in front of his face and manipulating it for at least 10 seconds was a sufficiently "specific and articulable fact" for a police officer to pull him over to investigate whether it had been a prohibited use of the cell phone under Iowa Code section 321.276 (2). The court concluded that officers are expected to make “commonsense judgements” about human behavior (8) and that additional investigation is not necessary to confirm suspicions if those suspicions were reasonable (9). One concerning element was that the court used empirical data to confirm the officers’ commonsense suspicions (18).
League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa v. Pate (2020): Justice Oxley dissented from the per curiam majority opinion, which held that a law requiring county auditors to contact voters regarding defective absentee ballots did not place a severe burden on the right to vote because it was the voters’ responsibility to provide their information (8-9) and there was a distinction between placing a burden on the voter and a burden on the auditor (15). Justice Oxley argued that the majority ignored the difficulties which the COVID-19 pandemic places on auditors due to the record number of absentee ballots (22). Oxley continued that this large quantity of ballots would result in many Iowans not receiving their ballots back in time to use them (22). One concerning element of this opinion was that Justice Oxley employed a balancing test (31).
Godfrey v. State (2021): Justice Oxley signed Justice McDonald’s majority opinion, which held that Godfrey had failed to show sufficient evidence to support his claim that the governor knew about his sexual orientation, which was a consideration necessary to prove that Godfrey’s salary reduction was based on the governor’s discrimination (33). The court also held that the governor could constitutionally reduce Godfrey’s salary because the relevant salary statute did not prohibit the salary reduction (50). The dissent argued that the court inappropriately substituted its opinion for the jury’s decision (55).
State v. Schiebout (2020), Justice Oxley dissented from the majority opinion to argue that precedent said that a case involving a woman who submitted false checks turned on whether she knew she was writing unauthorized checks (17) rather than on whether she knew that the checks would not be fulfilled (3).
Information on Judges standing for retention from Iowa Right to Life
Judge Voter Guide gave 4 Stars and voted to "retain."
QUESTIONNAIRE
VALUES
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.
Did not answer
Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality that is necessary for our system of limited government.
Did not answer
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Did not answer
What types of pro bono work have you done?
Did not answer
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or been penalized in either civil or criminal court for sexual misconduct? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
What education or experience qualifies you to hold the office for which you seek election?
Did not answer
Why should the voters choose you?
Did not answer
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Justices should not interpret the federal and state constitutions as living documents, but should use a textualist and originalist approach to interpretation.
Did not answer
What is the proper use of legislative history in interpreting statutory law?
Did not answer
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Did not answer
How should a court address the balance between public health and individual freedoms in the time of a pandemic?
Did not answer
In light of the case Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a prohibition on sexual-orientation discrimination, which justice’s opinion most closely aligns with your own opinion?
Did not answer
What role (if any) does a judge have in maintaining the separation of church and state?
Did not answer
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
Did not answer
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
Did not answer
How should a judge determine which rights are protected by the Constitution even though they are not specifically mentioned?
Did not answer
What legal principles should a court consider when evaluating parents’ objection to their child obtaining medical procedures or drugs designed to affirm the child’s desired gender?
Did not answer
What principles should guide a court’s analysis of whether your state’s constitution gives terminally ill patients a right to assisted suicide?
Did not answer
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else?
Did not answer
