Should Minnesota stop electing judges?

It's been a common refrain that voters know nothing about the people running for judges because state rules restricted candidates to talking only about their qualifications or the system of justice. But a Golden Valley attorney who symbolized those restrictions by tethering himself to a ball and chain, changed all that. Greg Wersal and the state's Republican Party challenged those rules all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won.

Now judicial candidates can seek political endorsement, raise money, and speak freely about the legal and political issues of the day. That's scared some judges and attorneys who view Wersal as a one-man wrecking-crew to the state's legal system.

The Commission on Preserving an Impartial Judiciary has been taking public testimony on the issue. But Tuesday was the first time panel members aired their personal views.

Several members of the commission, such as Judge James Hoolihan of Foley, said they fear judicial candidates will run on party platforms, accept special interest group money, and compromise their independence.

"We run the risk of having partisanship and big money come in and do the things in this state that they've done in other states and I think we're kidding ourselves if we think Minnesota Nice will prevail," Hoolihan said.

Another commission member agreed. The president of the League of Women voters, Helen Palmer, said voting should play no part in selecting judges because it's different branch of government. Nevertheless, Palmer said it will be tough to get the public to agree.

"I know the sale is going to be tremendously hard, to sell that to the public in Minnesota -- 'thank you very much but we don't want you to vote for judges anymore.' If we decide as a group to push that, we'll have an amazing task before us, but I think it's the way to go," according to Palmer.

A person can become a judge in Minnesota by winning the seat in an election or by appointment of the governor. The commission members appeared to be leaning towards abolishing elections. The governor would appoint judges based on a special panel's recommendations. Eliminating judicial elections would require ammending Minnesota's Constitution.

The state of South Dakota in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings tried to amend its constitution two years ago. Voters rejected it by a 2-to-1 margin.

Former Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Kathleen Blatz spoke to committee members and cautioned them against completely excluding voters from the process. She said that would require 60 percent of the voters agreeing to disenfranchise themselves.

"The idea of the people of Minnesota going in and giving up their right to vote for judges is a complete non-starter for me; it's just a non-starter," she said.

Blatz said Minnesotans might be willing to give the governor control over judicial appointments, if the public retains the power to kick them out. At the end of judges term, voters would decide whether to retain the judge. If the judge loses the election, the governor would appoint someone new.

There was one member who said he wasn't convinced that the state needed to abolish judicial elections completely. Former Hennepin County Judge John Stanoch said he was convinced that retention elections are a bad idea. He said they would still leave judges vulnerable to special interests and fundraising influence.

The commission has been working since February. It's not expected to issue a recommendation until after the November elections.

Gallery

Fullscreen SlideshowPrevious Slide

1 of 1

Next Slide