Candidate Profile
Christopher McDonald

Non-Partisan , Iowa

Biography

Name
Christopher McDonald
Party
Non-Partisan
Race
Supreme Court (retention of McDonald)
Incumbent
Yes
Links
   

Panel Rating

Proven Originalist Information icon

 

Other Information

Justice Christopher McDonald was appointed to the Iowa Supreme Court by Governor Kim Reynolds in 2019. When Justice McDonald was appointed, he said, “I promise to continue to be a faithful servant to the constitution and laws of this great state…To fairly and impartially decide cases and administer justice in good faith to the best of my ability.”

Justice McDonald has clerked for Chief Judge David Hansen at the U.S. Court of Appeals. President Reagan appointed Hansen to a district court, and President Bush later appointed Hansen to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

Justice McDonald wrote a concurring opinion in Goodwin v. Iowa District Court for Davis County (2019). The majority opinion said, "A failure to conduct an individualized hearing before imposing a mandatory minimum sentence would render a juvenile’s sentence unconstitutional and subject to a challenge as an illegal sentence.” Justice McDonald wrote a concurring opinion: "There is nothing in the text of the Iowa Constitution, as originally understood, that prohibits the imposition of a minimum sentence on a juvenile offender."

Justice McDonald joined the Iowa Supreme Court’s majority opinion in State v. Brown (2019): “This case requires us to decide whether a motorist who breaks a traffic law may lawfully be stopped if the officer was motivated by investigative reasons for the stop…Consistent with precedent in Iowa and the vast bulk of authority elsewhere, we affirm the district court judgment because the subjective motivations of an individual officer for making a traffic stop are irrelevant as long as the officer has objectively reasonable cause to believe the motorist violated a traffic law.” Justices Cady, Appel, and Wiggins dissented.

Justice McDonald 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 McDonald dissented in State v. Schiebout. The majority opinion said, “Kamie Jo Schiebout wrote checks without authorization from a bank account that was not hers. The State charged her with violating Iowa Code section 714.1(6) (2015), which provides a person commits theft ‘if the person knows that such check…will not be paid when presented.’ All seven checks the State charged Schiebout with writing were paid when presented…Evidence that she presented checks without authorization is, without more, insufficient to establish this particular crime [of presenting a check that one knows will not be paid].” Justice McDonald joined Justice Oxley’s dissenting opinion, which said, “Where the defendant does not challenge the jury instructions, those instructions become law of the case and define the law against which the evidence is measured…The majority gives lip service to this standard, but only after first providing its interpretation of Iowa Code section 714.1(6) (2015), an issue not before us since Schiebout did not challenge the jury instructions below."

Justice McDonald 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.”

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