District court, Judicial District 3
Steven J. Andreasen
District Court Judge · District 3B
About
Judge Andreasen was appointed as a district judge in January 2008. He had served as a magistrate in Woodbury County in 2006 and 2007 before his appointment to the bench. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Iowa in 1989 and his law degree from the same institution…
Retention votes
| Election | Yes | No | Kept by |
|---|---|---|---|
| November 8, 2022 | 33,120 | 9,432 | 77.8% yes |
What lawyers said
Before each retention vote, the Iowa State Bar Association asks lawyers who’ve appeared before the judge to rate them from 1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent), and whether the judge should be kept.3
95% of 81 responding lawyers said to keep the judge (2022).
| Question | 2022 |
|---|---|
| Knowledge and use of the law | 4.64 |
| Sees the facts of a case clearly | 4.61 |
| On time for court | 4.60 |
| Listens to arguments and testimony | 4.72 |
| Runs the courtroom well | 4.71 |
| Temperament and manner | 4.76 |
| Clear, well-written decisions | 4.59 |
| Rules promptly | 2.77 |
| Uses technology to improve the courts | 4.49 |
| Avoids needless personal criticism | 4.72 |
| Decides on the law and facts, not outside pressure | 4.75 |
| Courteous and patient | 4.80 |
| Treats people equally | 4.82 |
| Fair to people without a lawyer | 4.77 |
| Said to keep the judge | 95% |
| Lawyers responding | 81 |
Source: Iowa State Bar Association Judicial Performance Review: 2022 (page 31).
Appeals from this judge’s cases
2 appeals on record; 1 reversed or vacated at least in part.4
- Criminal appeal No. 24-1563AI summary The defendant challenged his conviction for sexual abuse, arguing that a video of the incident should not have been allowed as evidence in court. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to admit the video, finding that the evidence was properly authentic…
- Criminal appeal No. 24-0053AI summary The defendant appealed his sentence for a felony conviction, arguing that the fine was incorrect and that the prohibition on owning a firearm was unconstitutional. The court vacated part of the sentence and sent the case back to the lower court for resentencin…