Candidate Profile
Edward Mansfield

Non-Partisan , Iowa

Biography

Name
Edward Mansfield
Party
Non-Partisan
Race
Supreme Court (retention of Mansfield)
Incumbent
Yes
Links

Panel Rating

Originalist Information icon

Selected Contributions

Liberal

GIVEN BY CANDIDATE
1
Education and Opportunity Fund (2008)

Summary

100%

LIBERAL

0%

CONSERVATIVE

 

Other Information

Judge Voter Guide gives this candidate a rating of 8 out of 10.

Justice Edward Mansfield was appointed to the Iowa Supreme Court in 2011 by Governor Terry Branstad. Chet Culver appointed Mansfield to the Iowa Court of Appeals in 2009. Justice Mansfield has clerked for Judge Patrick Higginbotham, who was appointed by President Reagan.


Justice Mansfield joined a unanimous Iowa Supreme Court in Good v. Iowa Department of Human Services (2019): “In 2007, the Iowa legislature amended…the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA)—to add ‘gender identity’ to the list of protected characteristics…We must now determine whether the language of Iowa Administrative Code rule 441—78.1(4) pertaining to the prohibition of Iowa Medicaid coverage of surgical procedures related to ‘gender identity disorders’ violates the ICRA or the Iowa Constitution…we affirm the judgment of the district court because the rule violates the ICRA’s prohibition against gender-identity discrimination. Because of this, we adhere to the doctrine of constitutional avoidance and do not address the constitutional claim.”

Justice Mansfield joined the Iowa Supreme Court’s majority opinion in AFSCME Iowa Council 61 v. State (2019): “[This case] presents constitutional challenges to the 2017 amendments to the Public Employment Relations Act, Iowa Code chapter 20. The amendments…result in many public employees losing significant statutory bargaining rights compared to other public employees with arguably similar jobs… The plaintiffs allege the amendments violate the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution and violate their right to freedom of association…We conclude the 2017 amendments withstand the constitutional challenges.” Justices Cady, Wiggins, and Appel dissented.

Justice Mansfield joined the Court majority in Griffin v. Pate (2016), which said, “This appeal requires us to decide if the crime of delivery of a controlled substance is an ‘infamous crime’…The district court held the crime is an infamous crime, and a conviction thereof disqualifies persons from voting in Iowa…The term ‘infamous crime’ was generally recognized to include felony crimes at the time our constitution was adopted. This meaning has not sufficiently changed or evolved to give rise to a different meaning today.” Justices Wiggins, Hecht, and Appel dissented.

Justice Mansfield joined a unanimous Court in Homan v. Branstad (2016): “We affirm the judgment of the district court finding the Governor’s exercise of his item veto [of appropriations for the mental health institutes in Mount Pleasant and Clarinda] did not exceed the scope of his constitutional authority.”

Justice Mansfield joined a unanimous Iowa Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Iowa Board of Medicine (2015). The Court wrote, “In 2013, the Iowa Board of Medicine passed a rule establishing standards of practice for physicians who prescribe or administer abortion-inducing drugs. These standards require the physician to personally perform a physical examination and to be physically present when the abortion-inducing drug is provided…the Board’s rule violates the controlling ‘undue burden’ test announced by the United States Supreme Court [in Planned Parenthood v. Casey].”

Justice Mansfield dissented in Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds (2015), in which the Iowa Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of a law that required a 72-hour waiting period before abortions. The Court majority said that the law “violates both the due process and equal protection clauses of the Iowa Constitution because its restrictions on women are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest of the State.” Justice Mansfield authored the dissent, which said, “After considering the text, original meaning, and subsequent interpretation of the constitutional provisions at issue, the record in this case, the district court’s carefully written decision, and abortion cases from around the country, I conclude that the waiting period in Senate File 471 does not violate either article I, section 9 or article I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution.”

Justice Mansfield joined the Court majority in State v. Lyle (2014): “we hold a statute mandating a sentence of incarceration in a prison for juvenile offenders with no opportunity for parole until a minimum period of time has been served is unconstitutional under article I, section 17 of the Iowa Constitution.” Justice Zager wrote in his dissent, “I do not believe a seven-year mandatory minimum sentence imposed on an individual who was a juvenile at the time the offense was committed is cruel and unusual punishment under either the Federal or our Iowa Constitution.”

Questionnaire

Please note: Responses are entered electronically by the candidate and are listed verbatim.

Religious Liberty

Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.

(Did not answer)

The Ten Commandments should not be displayed in public school buildings or court houses.

(Did not answer)

What does "separation of church and state" mean to you?

(Did not answer)


Values

Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality which is necessary for our system of limited government.

(Did not answer)

George Washington's comment that “Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society” is still true today.

(Did not answer)

Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.

(Did not answer)

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, which justice’s opinion most closely aligns with your opinion of whether the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be extended to the LGBTQ community?

(Did not answer)

What types of pro bono work have you done?

(Did not answer)


Qualifications

I voted in these primaries and general elections:

(Did not answer)

When you consider your views on a wide range of issues from economic and social matters to foreign policy and immigration, which of the following best describes you overall?

(Did not answer)

Please provide publicly available information validating your answer to the previous question.

(Did not answer)

What education or experience qualifies you to hold the office for which you seek election?

(Did not answer)

In what areas of law have you practiced?

(Did not answer)

Have you ever been convicted of a felony or been penalized for sexual misconduct? If so, please explain.

(Did not answer)

Why should the voters choose you?

(Did not answer)

Is there anything else you would like voters to know about you?

(Did not answer)


Judicial Philosophy

The U.S. Constitution and my state constitution should be interpreted as living documents, rather than using a strict constructionist or originalist approach in judicial decisions.

(Did not answer)

There are times when American judges should alter U.S. case law in order to comply with foreign case law.

(Did not answer)

Which current U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?

(Did not answer)

What is the proper use of legislative history in interpreting statutory law?

(Did not answer)

What possibilities should a judge exhaust before departing from precedent?

(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)


Background

Education
  • (Candidate did not provide)
Work & Military
  • (Candidate did not provide)
Affiliations
  • (Candidate did not provide)
Offices
  • (Candidate did not provide)
 

Get Reminders

From important news to voting dates and reminders, iVoterGuide equips you to make an impact and a real difference in every election.
Join Now