As Iowa's new judicial-selection commission takes its first actions after changes to its composition, a judge will decide whether the changes are valid.

A group of Iowa House Democrats say the changes enacted by the Republican-majority Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, encroach on the separation of powers and were crafted illegally in any case. They argued at a hearing in Des Moines on Monday for an injunction that would temporarily invalidate the law, pending a trial.

Lawyers for the state said that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to sue, and that the people they sued are not the people who could harm their interests in any case. They also defended the process that led to the bill's passage.

Bob Rush, who is representing the Democrats, said Iowa's judicial-selection process has been respected since it was adopted by constitutional amendment in the 1960s. He contended that Republicans approved the changes to gain more power over the judiciary after some Iowa Supreme Court decisions, including those related to abortion and gay marriage, did not go their way.

"The press is replete with quotes and references from legislatures that say 'We've got to change this, the court has too much power; we've got to take it back,'" Rush said.

The law lets the governor make nine appointments, instead of eight, to the state nominating commission that helps choose Iowa Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. The new appointee replaces a Supreme Court justice who previously led the panel. The remaining eight commission members are elected by Iowa lawyers.

Another change deals with how the court's chief justice is selected; previously, the justices elected a chief to serve for the duration of that justice’s eight-year term. Now, the chief justice’s term is two years, with the possibility of re-election.

State: Democrats are jumping to conclusions

Rush said replacing a justice with a gubernatorial appointee represents "a dilution of the elected commissioners' votes. It's also a dilution of the (vote from) every member of the bar association ... who elects a member."

The defendants in the case, which include Gov. Kim Reynolds, the commission's newest appointee and Legislative Services Agency employees, say the lawsuit should be dismissed.

Assistant Attorney General David Ranscht said Monday that the changes were enacted legally and that any harm claimed by the legislators is speculative. The plaintiffs are operating under the assumption that all of Reynolds' appointees will vote the same 100 percent of the time, which is unlikely, judging by history, Ranscht said.

Ranscht also said the Democrats' dispute wasn't with the defendants he represents: "The harm that the legislators allege was not caused by these defendants. The harm that they alleged was caused by their colleagues in passing (the law). ... It's illogical, then, to conclude that the court can order relief against them."

District Judge Sarah Crane did not give a timeline for her decision to grant the injunction or dismiss the request but said she'd try to come to a decision quickly. The commission, along with its newly appointed member, Pella lawyer Dan Huitink, has already met once, Ranscht said. It is currently accepting applicants for an upcoming vacancy in the Iowa Court of Appeals, Rush said.

Was the inclusion of the changes in another bill legal?

Rush said the changes to the judicial-selection process should have been in a standalone bill — not as a late addition to a much larger appropriations bill.

The Iowa Constitution, he argued, requires legislative acts to have only one subject. After Republicans in both chambers previously failed to change the process outright, they did so covertly in a funding bill on the session's final night, he alleged.

Almost every state has a single-subject rule in its constitution and those rules are frequently at the center of lawsuits, according to a 2017 Virginia Law Review article, which found that rulings across the country have resulted in “vague, malleable” tests for what constitutes a single subject.

In 2008, the Iowa Supreme Court heard a case alleging that the Iowa Legislature had violated the Iowa Constitution's single-subject rule. The court found that the plaintiff in that case did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. It did not rule on whether the Legislature had violated the rule.

The practice of lawmakers adding policy language to budget bills has become more common in recent years in Iowa, although it often comes with criticism from the minority party. Republicans currently have a trifecta of power in state government, with majorities in the House and Senate and control of the governor's office.

Ranscht said that Democratic legislators who sued will not be directly harmed or helped by the legislation, making them ineligible.

Rush said the legislators and public are victims of "politically driven" changes to the selection process. He said the legislators he represents had a duty to uphold the state constitution but were not allowed to.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Wolfe, Rush and House Democratic Reps. Rick Olson of Des Moines, Mary Mascher of Iowa City, Art Staed of Cedar Rapids, Liz Bennett of Cedar Rapids, Mark Smith of Marshalltown, Brian Meyer of Des Moines and Jo Oldson of Des Moines.

Along with Reynolds and her appointee, Huitink, the lawsuit names as defendants Glen Dickinson, the director of the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency that helps draft legislation, and Leslie Hickey, a code editor hired by LSA to help publish Iowa code.

Follow the Register on Facebook and Twitter for more news. Tyler Davis can be contacted at 515-284-8378, tjdavis@dmreg.com or on Twitter @TDavisDMR.