(pictured) was a key campaigner against judicial retention.|alt=A man with combed-back brown hair in a black suit and tie. Following his loss in the gubernatorial primary, Vander Plaats announced on August 11, 2010 that he would campaign against the retention of Ternus, Streit, and Baker, creating the group Iowa for Freedom. The anti-retention campaign was funded in large part by an influx of out-of-state support, as Iowa for Freedom was largely financed by the
Mississippi-based
American Family Association, and $600,000 of advertising was paid for by the
New Jersey-based
National Organization for Marriage. Vander Plaats was widely labeled as the campaign's leader.
Newt Gingrich, a former
U.S. House Speaker from
Georgia who was a prospective presidential candidate for the
2012 election at the time, assisted in raising money for the campaign, and donated $125,000 to the effort from his
political action committee. Gingrich was described by the
Los Angeles Times as having a "key behind-the-scenes role" in the campaign against retention.
Steve King, who represented Iowa in the
United States Congress, led a bus tour advocating against retention of the justices, describing their ruling as
judicial activism. The three justices up for election did not campaign, although they did increase their public appearances across Iowa. The pro-retention campaign was mainly led by the Fair Courts for Us Committee, which did not coalesce until mid-October. The group spent over $350,000 in the election, mainly on radio ads and mailers. A radio ad paid for by Fair Courts for Us compared the
Varnum decision to a sports referee's "questionable call", and contained an endorsement for retention from
Bob Ray, a former governor of Iowa. Two other groups, Justice Not Politics and Iowans for Fair Courts, focused their campaigning on educational efforts.
Sandra Day O'Connor, a justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States, addressed the Iowa Bar Association in September, emphasising the importance of courts as places for "a fair and impartial hearing", and stating that judges should not be subjected to "outright retaliation". Overall, the campaign was described by Andrew J. Clopton and C. Scott Peters as being "one-sided", due to "scarce and poorly communicated" efforts from the pro-retention campaign. The opposition to judicial retention was driven by the
Varnum decision, providing campaigners with a "highly salient issue", as Clopton and Peters describe it, to center their efforts on, which was especially relevant given strong
evangelical Christian opposition to same-sex marriage. ==Results and reactions==