WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SJR 2002

A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa prohibiting the power of judicial review.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Jeff Taylor

Proposed Iowa constitutional amendment eliminating judicial review power, preventing courts from voiding unconstitutional laws.

Subcommittee recommends indefinite postponement. [].
#constitutionofiowa #courts #districtcourts #judicialadministration #resolutions #resolutions-substantive #rights
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SJR 2002

Legislative bill overview

SJR 2002 proposes a constitutional amendment to Iowa's state constitution that would eliminate the judicial branch's power of judicial review—the authority to declare laws unconstitutional or void. This would fundamentally alter the separation of powers by removing courts' ability to check legislative and executive actions through constitutional interpretation.

Why this is important

Judicial review is a cornerstone of American constitutional governance, allowing courts to ensure laws comply with constitutional limits. Eliminating this power would make Iowa's legislature and governor essentially unchecked by judicial oversight, potentially allowing unconstitutional laws to remain in effect unless the legislature itself repealed them. This represents a dramatic structural change to state government with significant implications for constitutional protections and individual rights.

Potential points of contention

  • Constitutional protections: Without judicial review, citizens would lose the primary legal mechanism to challenge laws violating state constitutional rights, potentially leaving individual freedoms unprotected
  • Separation of powers: The proposal would concentrate power in the legislature by removing a critical checks-and-balances mechanism, raising concerns about governmental overreach
  • Precedent and stability: Judicial review has been foundational to U.S. governance since Marbury v. Madison (1803); eliminating it would create uncertainty about how constitutional conflicts would be resolved
  • Practical implementation: The bill doesn't specify alternative mechanisms for resolving constitutional disputes, leaving ambiguity about how government disputes would be adjudicated

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.