Matthew McDermott
Non-Partisan | Iowa
Candidate Profile*
Originalist
*Additional information appears below for educational purposes; however, only data received prior to the candidate deadline was considered during Panel Evaluation.
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Matthew McDermott
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
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (5)
Brad Zaun (2010)
Chuck Grassley (2015)
David Young (2015)
Joni Ernst (2019)
Kim Reynolds (2018)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (0)
OTHER INFORMATION
Justice Matthew McDermott was appointed to the Iowa Supreme Court in 2020 by Governor Kim Reynolds (R.) Prior, Justice McDermott served as Legal Counsel for the Republican Party of Iowa from 2007-2012.
Notable Cases:
Johnston v. Iowa Department of Transportation (2021): Justice McDermott dissented from 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). McDermott argued that the court’s precedent in (Schilling) ought to be reversed because it did not did not preserve the same interpretation of the word “conviction” throughout the statute and some provisions of the text were interpreted to be redundant (16).
State v. Struve (2021): Justice McDermott dissented from 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). Justice McDermott argued that police officers must be able to support their stops with evidence rather than hunches (26). He argued that the majority interpreted the term “images” too broadly, and that it should have interpreted it in the context of “electronic messages,” which preceded it in the statute’s text (28). Also argued that the majority was wrong to assume that most phone use while driving is illegal activity under Iowa law (31). Justice McDermott said that constitutional protections should not be waived because they make poor or difficult public policy (35-36).
League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa v. Pate (2020): Justice McDermott signed the per curiam 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). The court also emphasized the difficulty of prevailing on a facial challenge and stated that facial challenges were disfavored because they had a tendency to be overly broad (7).
Godfrey v. State (2021): Justice McDermott dissent from the 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). Justice McDermott argued that Godfrey was unable to bring an ICRA claim in the first place because he was not an employee of the state (118).
State v. Schiebout (2020). Justice McDermott wrote the majority opinion, which held that a defendant’s conviction for knowingly presenting false checks should be vacated because the state did not provide sufficient evidence that the defendant knew the checks would not be fulfilled (3). The dissent argued that the precedent showed that what mattered in the case was not whether or not the defendant knew the bank would not fulfill the checks but that the defendant was unauthorized to write the checks in the first place (17).
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
