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
No comments:
Post a Comment