Increase in STIs and the MN GOP

As the recount begins, we continue to be thankful for our (soon to be) first prochoice governor in many years.  With republican majorities in both the house and senate, Dayton will be our last line of defense against the upcoming regression for education, public health and women’s rights. The republican minority has repeatedly attempted to remove funding from organizations that are ‘directly or indirectly affiliated with a provider of abortions or that is directly or indirectly involved in providing abortions.’ This would prevent funding from going to the majority of women’s health centers who, along with either providing or referring patients for this medical procedure, provide primary care for overwhelmingly underserved populations.


Will the republicans continue to play politics with the health and lives of Minnesotans? They have continued to fight against comprehensive sexuality education preferring the failed practice of abstinence only education.  All the while, the rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) continue to rise in Minnesota.

echopress

“As a major provider of education, testing and treatment of STI’s throughout Minnesota we know firsthand the importance of developing a strategy to address this health threat,” said PPMNS President and CEO Sarah Stoesz. “This study underscores what Planned Parenthood already knows: Women, men and teens need to know how to protect themselves against sexually transmitted infections. They need medically accurate and age appropriate information and access to preventive health care to build healthier, brighter futures,” Stoesz said.

The majority of parents support schools providing comprehensive sexuality education.  Hopefully, the legislature will promote educating and protecting our youth from the life-long problems STIs can bring.

Minnesota Judicial Elections 2010 (part 4)

On to 3rd court of the 10th district, 24 candidates are competing for one seat. The incumbent Judge Armstrong filed to run but dropped out of the race. This left anyone who could get 500 signatures an opportunity to run for this open seat. One MAJOR issue with this race is that the Republican Party has endorsed a candidate and ANY form of organization to GOTV will put that person over the top. With that in mind, I've tried to narrow the field. (at the bottom of the post)

These candidates sought GOP endorsement: David Hanson, Robert Steigauf, Tad Jude and Christopher Penwell. They would have trouble with impartiality.


Alphabetically:

Laurette S. Arnold – civil litigator and believe political viewpoints should be a part of judicial elections and would work to increase the public's access to the court system. Her judicial philosophy is 'akin to that of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia'. Ms. Arnold states that she is a Conservative and caucuses with the Republicans. She also attended the Tea Party candidate event.
Woodbury Bulletin

Discussing viewpoints increases voter information; involvement in politics allows candidates (voters) full participation in elections. I disagree with the position that if judges’ political positions/affiliations are known, then the public will perceive them to be partial/biased. The position only leads me to believe that those purporting it would they themselves be biased. I have appeared before judges with opposite political views, and not once, have I assumed/believed that this caused the judge to render unfair/biased rulings. It’s an issue of free speech and free association. What kind of judge would I be if I favored limiting this speech or association?

Helen R. Brosnahan – judicial clerk & prosecutor. She attended the Tea Party candidate event and stood her ground stating that faith shouldn’t be taken into account or effect judges decisions and STRONGLY believes in separation of church and state.

Woodbury Bulletin

There is no place for politics in the judiciary. We have the executive and legislative branches for politics. The judiciary is charged with interpreting the laws and policies of the other two branches for constitutionality. In addition, the judiciary must resolve disputes between the other two branches. It is for these reasons that it is imperative that we maintain judicial independence, and impartiality in the judiciary. Nonpartisan, independent, and fair-minded judges best serve the public.

Jennifer Santoro Bovitz – prosecutor. Believes that the most important issues for judges is 'to treat all persons without bias'.

Woodbury Bulletin

Judicial candidates should not engage in political behavior that leaves the public with a feeling that the candidate is anything but impartial.

Patricia (Zenner) Burchill (no web page?) - private practice. Attended the tea party forum and mentioned that she is a person of faith and doesn’t know how someone would separate that from a job. She believes the most important issues within the judiciary are that a judge maintain impartiality and listen to all parties. She did not answer the questions from the Woodbury Bulletin.

Bridgid E. Dowdal – federal prosecutor and assistant dean at William Mitchell. Believes in 'equal access to justice and fairness'.
Woodbury Bulletin

It is critical that a judge remain fair and independent in order for our judiciary to maintain nonpartisanship and independence. Injecting politics into a judicial race jeopardizes its actual and perceived impartiality and independence. To ensure that there will not be bias or the appearance of bias in my courtroom if I am elected, I have established higher standards for my campaign than what is required by law. I am not seeking or accepting political party endorsement, and I am not taking positions in the campaign on matters of controversy that may come before me as a judge.

Portia Hampton-Flowers – Supervising attorney of the civil litigation division of St. Paul. She is 'committed to serving in a fair and nonpartisan manner and making sure everyone is treated with respect and has equal access to justice.'

Woodbury Bulletin

Judicial candidates are in a unique position when it comes to campaign activities. While the First Amendment guarantees each person the right to freedom of speech and free association, judges and judicial candidates must conduct themselves in such a way as to avoid even the appearance of bias, partiality or predisposition with respect to any issue that could potentially come before the court. Our system of government is based upon having an independent and non-partisan judiciary. Discussions regarding a judicial candidates political views conflict with the non-partisan nature of judicial elections and threaten the foundation of our judicial system. I believe judicial candidates should not engage in any conduct that suggests partiality.

David L. Hanson – prosecutor & private practice. He sought the endorsement of the GOP. He did not fill out the Star Tribune questionnaire. And was not on the Woodbury Bulletin's list of candidates. He did attend the Tea Party candidate forum. But according to his web page,

You can trust me to apply the law as it is written and respect the Constitution. The Constitutions of the Federal Government and the State of Minnesota are the most important documents in our legal system. A Judge’s job is to follow the rule-of-law and apply the law as written by the Legislature. Minnesotans need a Judge who is willing to respect both Constitutions and make a pledge not to legislate from the bench—I am that candidate.

Mimi Hasselbalch – general practice. She wants to work to bring new technology to streamline the court system.

Woodbury Bulletin

No answer provided. (she did answer other questions)

From her web page

Party affiliation:  Voluntarily signed the Minnesota State Bar Association's Affirmation regarding Responsible Judicial Campaign Conduct, agreeing among other things, not to identify my membership in a political party or my opinions on disputed political issues.

Sheridan Keith Hawley (no web page?)– prosecutor & private practice. At the tea party forum, candidates were asked if faith plays a role in being a judge.  She said that everyone brings faith into job but you must recognize what biases you may have so can be impartial. Her most important issue is to ensure that she runs the courtroom with respect and fairness.

Woodbury Bulletin

Judges are citizens and entitled to be involved in the politics that affect their lives. However, political affiliations should not be part of judicial elections. Judges should not be beholden to anyone or any group. Each decision made by a judge must be based solely on the facts of the case and the law that applies. There is no room on the bench for a judge to decide cases based on the agenda of a political group. Because judges apply but do not make laws, judges who are in debt to a political party undermine the checks and balances system.

Dawn R. Hennessy – Clerk for retiring judge Armstrong in the 10th district 3rd court. She attended the tea party forum. Believes that the most important issue is to 'guarantee every individual be given the same process and same protection receiving equal justice under the law'

Woodbury Bulletin

I don’t believe that judicial candidates should be allowed to discuss their political views or seek backing by political parties, even though the 8th Circuit found it to be protected by the First Amendment. I believe a judge needs to be detached and unbiased on the bench. She should not be beholden to any group or use political views to influence any decision on a case. I do not have, or have never had, any party affiliation and only make a commitment to follow the law and apply it fairly and honestly in every case without a political agenda.

Tad Jude – former county commissioner and legislator. Sought GOP endorsement. When asked if religion should play a roll in the courts he replied saying he carries a picture of Moses.


Woodbury Bulletin

Freedom of speech and association are two of our most fundamental constitutional rights. A citizen shouldn’t forfeit those rights when becoming a judicial candidate. In fact, the freedom to discuss judicial philosophy with voters is an essential part of maintaining free, fair, and open elections by providing voters with the opportunity to actually learn about the candidates running, and thereby allowing them to make the most informed choice. Open and impartial discussion encourages voter interaction and makes the court system stronger by ensuring the best qualified and most vetted candidates are elected to office.

Pete Marker – attorney general’s office and city council member. He believes that a quality district court judge needs to have many qualities, most critically being thoughtful, decisive, respectful, efficient, and trustworthy.

Woodbury Bulletin

One of the most important functions of a district court judge is to do everything that he or she can to build and maintain the public's confidence in the judiciary. This includes not only being impartial in carrying out judicial functions, but also maintaining the public's perception of judicial impartiality. The infusion of partisanship into elections and the involvement of judges in partisan or political activities threatens this principle. District court judges must apply the law without a political or ideological agenda. As a district court judge, I would be cautious to not be involved in anything that would undermine the public's confidence in my ability to be an impartial judge.

Catherine Ann McEnroe – business litigation. She attended the tea party forum. Wants to work to increase the efficiency of the legal process for the persons who appear before the court, and would work to ensure that all persons have equal acess to the courts. She was not included in the Woodbury questionnaire, but in the Star Tribune,

The cornerstone of our judicial system is a fair and impartial judiciary; litigants have the right to have their disputes heard and decided without regard to partisan politics. If elected a judge, it is vital that individuals appearing before me are treated fairly and with dignity.

Catherine (Kate) McPherson –worked in victim witness program as prosecutor. She attended the tea party forum. She believes that as a judge, I will need to ensure that the courts remain true to fundamental justice while operating as efficiently as possible to protect taxpayer resources.

Woodbury Bulletin

I support keeping judicial elections non-partisan and limiting discussions of political issues and involvement in non-judicial politics. When judges weigh in on political issues and are active in political matters, public confidence is eroded. I do not believe increasing judicial involvement in politics will improve the judiciary or the public’s confidence in the judiciary. In fact, I believe the more political the process becomes, the more distrustful the public will become. We ask judges to set aside their personal opinions and beliefs and follow the law. Judges immersing themselves in politics will not demonstrate to the public their ability to do so.

Kelley Malone O'Neill – trial lawyer. 'If elected, I will exemplify this demeanor. I will listen to all parties, I will be fair and impartial, and I will dedicate myself to finding a just result based upon the law in each case.'

Woodbury Bulletin

Judicial races should not be political. A judicial position is different from other kinds of public office. Judges are required to follow the law, not their personal political views or a political platform. Judges must listen to both sides in a dispute and must be open-minded. The public must have confidence that the judge in their case will apply the law fairly without regard to political party positions. Five candidates in this race sought endorsement by a political party. Partisan endorsements in judicial races are wrong and should not be the basis for casting a vote.

WM. Christopher Penwell (endorced by GOP) – Trial attorney worked to protect businesses from regulation. Attended the tea party forum. He believes that 'No judge is a blank slate; it is not possible for them to completely shed their values, beliefs and personal experiences when they put on the black robe.'


Woodbury Bulletin

All judicial candidates have political leanings, which do not disappear when they announce their candidacy. Their view, for example, of constitutional limits on government’s power is important information for voters. Recent federal court cases have ruled that my endorsement by the Republican Party is an exercise of my First Amendment right to provide voters with basic information about my values and beliefs. The absence of an endorsement is certainly no proof of a candidate’s impartiality. Voters are entitled to all the information they can get about a candidate so they can decide for themselves who will be fair and impartial.

Mary E. Smits – legal assistance private practice. She attended the tea party forum. She believes it is imperative to treat everyone in the courtroom with dignity and respect.

Woodbury Bulletin

No, it is wrong. Isn't our country polarized enough? To have a judicial candidate declare membership in, become involved with, or actively promote a political party platform, erodes public confidence in an impartial judiciary. Political views should be kept private to preserve the appearance of integrity and fairness of a judicial candidate. My concern is that a candidate who has openly declared a political following and who gains financial or other support will be expected, if elected, to act within certain parameters. The message sent to the judge may not be open but it will be there, even if subliminally.

Richard Stebbins (no web page?) –family/criminal lawyer. Attended the tea party forum. He believes that applying the law fairly and objectively to each case is the duty of a district court judge.

Woodbury Bulletin

I absolutely do not believe judicial elections should contain any aspect of influence or endorsement by political parties. The purpose of a non-partisan seat and the essence of an objective and neutral judiciary DEMANDS that politics be left out of judicial elections. Judges should be selected by merit and experience, not by association with a party platform.

Robert "Bob" Steigauf – private practice. Attended tea party forum and played to their views (antigovernment). He sought the endorsement of the GOP. He believes the most important issue for me is giving all parties a fair trial.


Woodbury Bulletin

This is a First Amendment issue. The question, when rephrased, is, ‘Should a judicial candidate’s First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly be denied or suspended because she is running for office? The intent of the prohibition was to “preserve the independence of a judicial office” and avoid any “public perception” that the candidate’s political views or associations might interfere with his ability to be unbiased. I can’t think of any reason why judicial candidates should be deprived of their First Amendment rights. Judicial candidates were not afforded any “due process” but merely expected to voluntarily surrender their most sacred rights in order to run for office.

Yamy Vang – assistant city attorney for St. Paul. 'As your judge, fairness, respect, and compassion for families and their safety will always guide my decisions. I will tenaciously work to provide justice.'

Woodbury Bulletin

Minnesota Judicial Cannon mandates that judges avoid any impropriety or appearance of impropriety in order to ensure an independent, fair and impartial judiciary. A nonpartisan judiciary is the first step toward maintaining the integrity of our legal system. In our system of justice, the courtroom is often the last place where a citizen's voice is heard. Public trust and confidence in our judicial system requires that our judges remain nonpartisan.

Lindy T Yokanovich – private practice, professor and founder/executive director at cancer legal line. 'I will bring my proven talents of creative problem solving to my work as a judge to effectively and efficiently increase access to justice.'

Woodbury Bulletin

I believe that there are more important things to consider when electing a judge than political views. With shrinking budgets and increasing need for access to our courts, what practical experience does each candidate bring to the table in addition to their legal experience? What objective actions have they taken demonstrating their leadership, independence and dedication to law? Actions speak louder than words. Everyone agrees personal political views should not influence a judge’s decisions, so let’s talk about the actions they have taken during their lives that demonstrate the qualities we all want in a judge: leadership, fairness, respect, effectiveness.

_________________
The rest of this is just the way I would decide on who to vote for...coming from hours of researching these people.
Rule out because of lack of impartiality: Laurette S. Arnold, Tad Jude, David Hanson, Robert Steigauf, and Christopher Penwell

Rule out because of lack of information: Patricia (Zenner) Burchill

Those that didn't COMPLETELY rule out politicizing judicial races.
Sheridan Keith Hawley (no web page?)
Pete Marker

Still in:
Helen R. Brosnahan(did not answer League of Women Voters questionnaire) ~personally, I enjoyed her answers at the tea party forum.
Jennifer Santoro Bovitz
Patricia (Zenner) Burchill (no web page?)
Bridgid E. Dowdal
Portia Hampton-Flowers(did not answer League of Women Voters questionnaire)
Mimi Hasselbalchthough she didn't answer the question when asked.
Dawn R. Hennessy
Catherine Ann McEnroe(did not answer League of Women Voters questionnaire)
Catherine (Kate) McPherson
Kelley Malone O'Neill(did not answer League of Women Voters questionnaire)
Mary E. Smits(did not answer League of Women Voters questionnaire)
Richard Stebbins (no web page)
Yamy Vang(did not answer League of Women Voters questionnaire)
Lindy T Yokanovich

Though if you rule out those that either didn't answer questions (which I see as their job as a candidate) and those without a web page (seriously?)
You come to:
Now, their best points (in my view)
Jennifer Santoro Bovitz ~career prosecutor. Lists thoughts from supporters.
Bridgid E. Dowdal ~ Federal prosecutor. Does list endorsements. *Update: has google ad running for judicial election search
Dawn R. Hennessy ~ Has been working in this court.  The law clerk for retiring Justice Armstrong. Does not list endorsements.
Catherine (Kate) McPherson ~ Worked her way through law school & work in child protection. Does list endorsements.
Lindy T Yokanovich ~ Has done a lot of pro bono work and founded cancer legal line. Does not list endorsements.

At this point, I would say all the candidates would do a good job.
Please comment on this post or send an email if you have further information that should be included. You can follow me on twitter @rachelnygaard for updates.

There are three other posts in this series. Here are the links:

http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/7286/minnesota-judicial-elections-2010

http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/7610/minnesota-judicial-elections-2010-part-2

http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/7609/minnesota-judicial-elections-2010-part-3

Minnesota Judicial Elections 2010 (part 3)

Skipping over the mess of the 10th district court 3, we’ll move on to the 10th district court 27 where John Dehen is challenging Judge Michael Roith. Judge Michael Roith has been on the bench for 26 years and prior to that worked as a public defender. Unfortunately, John Dehen appears to have an anger management problem with two protective orders filed against him. As a prochoice woman, his thought on parental input from his run in 2008 worried me, plus his campaign page sounds very tea party Republican. (this quote was not in the context of minor woman's right to an abortion)

Herald-Journal

Parental input in the lives of their children is essential when the family encounters the services of the court. Judicial intervention into family decisions is to be exercised with caution and only when necessary.

UPDATED: In 2006, Mr. Dehen was reprimanded by the Minnesota Supreme court.
How can a person who cannot follow the laws himself, expect the voters to trust him with enforcing the laws?


In the ninth district court 16, Darrell Carter is challenging Judge Paul Benshoff. Darrell Carter is a volunteer attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund.

Securing citizens religious liberties to worship, speech and expression and the unborn's right to life

 He seems to be running because he REALLY doesn’t like Judge Benshoff. Mr. Carter was endorsed by the GOP, while Judge Benshoff does not believe in mixing politics with the judiciary. Candidate questions in Bemidji Pioneer
Mr. Carter CLEARLY has conflicts of interest that would not allow him to be an impartial judge.

In the ninth district court 17, Incumbent Judge Paul Rasmussen is challenged by former Judge Terrance Holter. In Red Lake they were asked about the perception of inequality in the legal system.

Red Lake Net News

Rasmussen said he believes the system victimizes the poor and that people in
poverty sometimes commit traffic offenses because they can’t afford insurance
and licenses. Laws must be applied fairly, he said.

Holter agreed that socio-economic factors influence the higher percentage of
Indians showing up in court, but added that judges deal with the people who come
before them and have no control over why they are in court.

Judge Holter lost his seat in an odd turn of events that you can read in citypages. Judge Rasmussen writes a weekly newspaper column and makes general comments on cases, I’m not exactly sure how he gets around the code of judicial conduct, but I’m not a lawyer.

Mike Cuzzo and Timothy Costley are running for the open seat in the sixth district court 11. The Duluth News Tribune Endorsed Cuzzo. Finding information about these two candidates was extremely difficult and neither had much in regards to substance on their web pages. Both candidates are attorneys with their own private practice.

The Hillsider

Michael Cuzzo
1. Why are you running?
In my 26 years of as a courtroom attorney, I believe I have gained the broad and extensive experience necessary to effectively serve in the position of District Court Judge. I have demonstrated that ability, as I have been called upon to act as Arbitrator and Mediator, helping parties resolve their disputes. I have always represented people from all walks of life, and have demonstrated my ability to be respectful of all people. I want to use these tools I have gained from this background to serve the people as a judge.

The Hillsider

Timothy Costley
1. Why are you running?
I am running to be the North Shore Judge in the Sixth Judicial District. The seat I am seeking is being vacated by Judge Kenneth Sandvik, who is retiring at the end of this year. Although the election is district wide (St. Louis, Carlton, Lake & Cook counties), this seat serves primarily Lake and Cook counties, with courthouses in Two Harbors and Grand Marais.

I have practiced law in private practice for 15 years. My law practice has involved litigation of almost every type of case that would come before a district court judge. I have handled many complex civil matters involving construction defects, breach of contract, business contract and ownership disputes, real estate disputes, personal injury, product liability, dram shop and insurance coverage disputes. I have handled hundreds of family law cases and am a regularly court-appointed counsel for juvenile cases in Lake and Cook counties.

A judicial candidate needs to have the courtroom experience, knowledge and legal skills to be able to handle the duties of a judge. I have that courtroom experience and those skills and I have the broadest range of experience of any candidate running for this position. I have the knowledge, temperament and common sense to be a fair and impartial judge.

I live and work in my hometown of Two Harbors, where the main chambers for this judicial seat is located. I am connected to and respected in this community. I think it is important that a judge live and work in the community they will preside over, as I do. If elected, I will continue to treat everybody that comes before me with kindness, respect and fairness.

I'm still working on the 24 candidates for the 3rd court of the 10th district. Will post ASAP, I will be relying heavily on the KSTP videos, individual web pages and the Tea Party Patriots Forum. (which has been a very interesting video)

Other posts in this series
1. http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/7286/minnesota-judicial-elections-2010
2. http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/7610/minnesota-judicial-elections-2010-part-2
4. http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/7628/minnesota-judicial-elections-2010-part-4

Minnesota Judicial Elections 2010 (part 2)

In the first district court 8, incumbent Judge Timothy Blakely is challenged by Larry Clark.  Most recently, Judge Blakely was suspended and censured for misconduct involving directing clients to his divorce attorney in exchange for discount on his own divorce. Larry Clark has been endorsed by MN Bar over Judge Blakely.  Mr. Clark has previously worked for the Human Rights Commission and believes strongly in keeping judicial elections nonpartisan.

Hastings Star Gazette

Q: Do you intend to seek endorsement and/or financial contributions from political parties and other special-interest groups? If so, which organizations/individuals have endorsed you?
A: I feel very strongly that the judiciary must remain impartial and nonpartisan. I will not accept endorsements from any political organizations. Political parties have their place, but it is not in the judiciary. Judicial candidates should be elected based on their qualifications and their performance, and they should not be tied to any party platform or agenda. To do otherwise, would threaten the impartiality of our judges and the confidence the electorate has in the judicial system.

The second district court 16 is between Gloria Bogen and Mark Ireland. Both believe judicial case load is one of the most important issues judges face today. Both have numerous endorsements from legislators and local officials, Gloria Bogen was endorsed by the pioneer press. Ms. Bogen is Executive Director/Attorney at legal assistance of Washington County and has been a member of the board of Zoning Appeals for the past 16 years and co-chaired the St. Paul police committee recommending John Harrington for the post in 2004.  Mark Ireland is a former assistant attorney general and current special counsel to Hennepin County prosecuting mortgage fraud. Neither candidate seems to support politicizing the judicial process.
(I believe that the courts benefit with intelligent and competent women on the bench.)

Series of questions asked by e-democracy:
Court resources
Qualifications
Judicial philosophy
Courage in the role of a judge
Thoughts on search warrants

In the second district court 27, Connie S. Iversen is running against incumbent Judge Leary. Judge Leary was appointed and won re-election in 2004. Prior to his appointment, he was a civil litigation attorney with an emphasis on health-care litigation, professional liability and work-place discrimination.  He helped form the Ramsey County Mental Health Court, that works with social services to help provide some stability for chronic offenders who are mentally ill.  Connie Iversen is a public defender in Ramsey County and an adjunct professor. A search of Judge Leary shows that he held a public defender in contempt of court for what looks like being chronically late and ignoring a court order.  Ms. Iversen mentions this case on her web page and quote from a Pioneer Press article (which you have to pay for to read). She quotes that the Pioneer Press author states, “Critics have described Leary as a judge who throws his weight around and sometimes fails to treat fellow professionals with respect.” This is a tiny bit of mud throwing and I could find no substantiation of this claim.  If anyone knows more about this judge, please leave a comment.

Again, the information from E-democracy.org was very helpful and both gave well-reasoned answers.
Courage
Court resources
Thoughts on search warrents
Judicial philosophy
Qualifications

Other posts in this series:
1. http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/7286/minnesota-judicial-elections-2010
3. http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/7609/minnesota-judicial-elections-2010-part-3
4.
http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/7628/minnesota-judicial-elections-2010-part-4

Minnesota Judicial Elections (part 1)

September 29, 2010


People rarely know much about judicial candidates when walking into the voting booth. Historically, judicial candidates do not list political affiliation or speak about their specific views on a topic.  Supreme Court Justice Dietzen (appointed by Governor Pawlenty) commented on the troubled state of judicial impartiality.

Poten & Partners

The election of judges is a part of maintaining that impartiality, he said, explaining, that through that system, "judges are (held) accountable." Minnesota's judge elections further facilitate fairness, he said, by not allowing judicial candidates to list their political affiliations.

However, Dietzen believes that impartiality could be in danger after a recent state Supreme Court ruling (Republican Party of Minnesota vs. White) that allows political parties to endorse judicial candidates and also allows candidates to speak about specific rulings and their views on them. Whenever such allowances are made, he said, big spending follows, sometimes leading to voter assumptions that "justice is for sale."

The republican tea party is hosting a judicial candidate forum tonight in Monticello. info


Greg Wersal, challenging Justice Helen Meyer, does not agree with this separation of politics and our judicial system.  Mr. Wersal wants to bring partisan politics into the process of choosing 'impartial' judges.  He has been endorsed by the republican, contitution and libertarian parties and touts his part in the Republican Party of Minnesota vs. White decision. This decision could lead to even more partisan politics, we need to only look to the state of Wisconsin judicial elections to see what may happen in Minnesota.

CNN

Justice Louis Butler -- already on the high court after being appointed to fill a vacancy -- and Burnett County Circuit Judge Michael Gableman have traded partisan attacks, helped by hundreds of broadcast ads aired across the state, most funded by a host of independent advocacy groups.

"What's remarkable about this race is how dominant the outside groups have been," said J.R. Ross, editor at WisPolitics.com. "They've outspent the candidates themselves 10-to-1 on TV ads. They're essentially drowning out the messages of Butler and Gableman."

Mr. Wersal believes that judges are policy makers, which from my 8th grade understanding of US government, is not what the framers intended. In contrast to this ultra activist, you can vote for Justice Helen Meyer.
I'm paraphrasing her MPR interview.

She states that she is devoted to the law. The law is what makes democracy great and is important to our foundation.  Having been a trial lawyer, she believes that judicial opinions need to be readable and understandable to produce stability within the law.

The second contested supreme court seat is Tim Tingelstad challenging Justice Alan Page. Tim Tingelstad, who has been endorced by MCCL (The anti-choice, anti-sex ed group Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life), does not believe in separation of church and state.  He believes that scripture should guide our legal system and every school should be a parochial school.  While the likelihood of banning state schools in favor of a church run education system is pretty slim, his beliefs could be implemented in the form of teaching creationism instead of evolution in science classes, ensuring that children pray at the beginning of school and athletic events and preventing the teaching of sexuality education.

In the same MPR interview with Justice Meyer, Justice Page discussed his thoughts on the law.

Again, I'm paraphrasing from MPR interview.

He puts aside his own beliefs because he believes that judges should be fair and impartial. Judges are here to interpret the laws to the best of their ability, not to work for a special interest. His job is to interpret the laws as set forth by the legislature. We need to ensure that the justice system is a system that citizens can trust and put their confidence in.

The appellate court has two contested seats (the 13th and 14th courts). Dan Griffith is challenging Justice Larry Stauber Jr. and Roxann Klugman is challenging Justice Randolph W. Peterson.  Dan Griffith appears to have a Republican Tea Party streak and is endorsed by the republican party.
Griffith for judge campaign page

It is not just about meaningful elections. It is about what you do once you get elected.
We need to take our country back!

He is running on a platform that judges should be elected, which I agree with, but inserting partisan politics into the judicial system is not the way to do it. He applauds the Minnesota vs. White decision in one breath then says judges must not be part of a party but for the people in another breath.

Griffith for judge campaign page

Q: Why is there a group trying to take our right to vote on judges away?  Who are "they?"
A: In 2002 the US Supreme Court ruled Minnesota’s judicial election process unconstitutional because it prevented voters from knowing about their candidates. Thankfully that ruling cleared the way for voters to learn about their judges’ positions and vote more intelligently in an election.

Q: Why do you want to be a judge?
A: I believe this year, 2010, is crucial because it may be one of the last years where voters still have the right to choose who they want for their judges. I’m passionate about bringing this message to the people of Minnesota; "WE the people need to hold our leaders accountable. It is critical that we keep our right and freedom to choose our leaders."

Q: What party do you most associate yourself with?
A: I am not a party, but a person.  Judges do not need to be independent from the people. They need to be independent from partisan politics and accountable to the people they are to serve. It is the Judge’s job to hear the facts, find the truth and apply the law-not rewrite it-and certainly not to review the law through the prism of a political party.

Unfortunately, much like the republican tea party, he doesn't appear to know what he believes in, except he seems to be for him being a judge and against others being one.

Justice Stauber's thoughts on the judicial system.

elect Judge Larry Stauber web page

Serving as a judge on the Minnesota Court of Appeals is an honor, but also a very serious and difficult task.  I hear, review, and decide hundreds of complex appellate cases each year.  Each case requires nonpartisan neutrality in applying the law (statutes, common law and case precedent) to the particular facts presented.

With over 30 years of a broad private law practice, including 28 years as a Public Defender, I have the experience needed of an appellate court judge.  My background also helps.  Four years working at U.S. Steel, teaching school, 4½ years of active duty in the U.S. Army as an airborne officer, 8 years as a Township Supervisor, plus many other professional and community activities have provided hard lessons and great experiences.

People ask, “how do I know a judge is competent or a good person.”   Asking those in my community is a good start.  I encourage you to ask the Duluth Bar Association, court personnel, lawyers, neighbors and anyone who knows me and my family.  To better understand and evaluate my work, read the opinions I have authored as an appellate judge.

I was asked by the League of Women Voters to comment on “key challenges facing the courts,” and one of my responses was:

“…the judiciary is, for the first time, being threatened by political partisanship….This will weaken our historically independent judiciary.”

Finally, Roxann Klugman is challenging 13th Court of Appeals Justice Peterson, neither of which seem to have a campaign page.


Barbara L. Jones for Minnesota Lawyer

Peterson/Klugman
A newcomer with what up to now has been a low profile in the legal community is Roxann Klugman of Afton, who filed against Judge Randolph Peterson on the last day for filings.

At the time of filing the Minnesota Supreme Court’s lawyer registration page stated that Klugman was not authorized to practice law because she was under suspension for nonpayment of fees. Shortly after filing, Klugman brought her fees up to current status, and is now authorized to practice law.
Peterson has served on the court since 1990 when he was appointed by Gov. Rudy Perpich. He served in the Minnesota Senate from 1981 to 1990 and was in private practice before going on the bench. Peterson said he doesn’t know Klugman and has no inkling why she filed against him.

Peterson has never faced a challenger before and has just begun to think about campaigning, he told Minnesota Lawyer. “I’m not going to do anything to turn our judicial elections into political contests,” he said.  “People have to have confidence that we are going to make decisions based on law.”

Judge Peterson is backed by the Minnesota Bar

Meanwhile, Judge Randolph Peterson received 95 percent of lawyer votes to stealth challenger Roxann Klugman’s 5 percent. Little is known of Klugman, whose campaign strategy and motivations for running appear to be equally mysterious.

Roxann Klugman is a tax attorney and author of 'The Dividend Growth Investment Strategy'.  The only political notion of Ms. Klugman that I could find was her signing the NRSC pledge.  This pledge is organized by a group called Truth Laid Bear and is a pledge to not donate money to republican senators who criticized the commitment of additional troops to Iraq.

I will cover the contested District Court elections in my next post.

Other posts in this series:
2. http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/7610/minnesota-judicial-elections-2010-part-2
3. http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/7609/minnesota-judicial-elections-2010-part-3
4. http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/7628/minnesota-judicial-elections-2010-part-4