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
