Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Minnesota Supreme Court elections, 2014

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Election highlights

Supreme-Court-Elections-badge.png
2015
2013
Judicial Elections
Ballotpedia Election Coverage Badge.png
Judicial elections, 2014
Judicial election dates
Candidates by state
Supreme court elections


Results

Justice Wilhelmina Wright faced John Hancock, a special agent with the Department of Homeland Security. This was Wright's first election to the high court, following appointment in 2012, and she was re-elected. As of October 27, Hancock reported no funds raised, while Wright reported $70,413.[1]

Seat 2
Candidate Vote %
Wilhelmina Wright56.8%
John Hancock43.0%
98.98% of precincts reporting[2]
Incumbent Wilhelmina Wright
Winner Wilhelmina Wright


Justice David Lillehaug was appointed to the court by Governor Mark Dayton and faced a challenger in Michelle L. MacDonald. Lillehaug won in the general election. MacDonald was endorsed by the Minnesota Republican Party, and has $315 reported as raised for her campaign.[3][4]Justice Lillehaug has $84,414 as of October 27.[1]

Seat 3
Candidate Vote %
David Lillehaug53.2%
Michelle L. MacDonald46.5%
98.98% of precincts reporting[5]
Incumbent David Lillehaug
Winner David Lillehaug

On the ballot: Seat 2 (Justice Wright)

Seat 2
Wilhelmina Wright
Wright.jpg
Incumbent: Yes
Primary vote: n/a
Election vote: 56.8%ApprovedA
John Hancock
JHancockMN.jpg
Incumbent: No
Primary vote: n/a
Election vote: 42.9%DefeatedA

Wilhelmina Wright was appointed to the court by Governor Dayton in August 2012. She is the first black woman to serve on the state's supreme court. Her challenger, John Hancock, was a former private practice attorney who was a special agent with the Department of Homeland Security.[6]

On the ballot: Seat 3 (Justice Lillehaug)

Seat 3
Michelle L. MacDonald
Michelle MacDonald.jpg
Incumbent: No
Primary vote: n/a
Election vote: 46.5%DefeatedA
David Lillehaug
David-Lillehaug.jpg
Incumbent: Yes
Primary vote: n/a
Election vote: 53.2%ApprovedA

David Lillehaug was appointed to the court by Gov. Dayton in March 2013. He was opposed by GOP-backed family lawyer Michelle L. MacDonald.

Political composition

VOTE.png

Minnesota's judicial elections are nonpartisan, so justices do not explicitly state their political affiliations. The affiliation of the appointing governor is sometimes considered an indication of a nominee's political alignment, though such assumptions are not always accurate. As of the 2014 general election, four justices on the supreme court were chosen by the former Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty: Barry Anderson, Christopher Dietzen, Lorie Gildea and David Stras. Two were chosen by Democratic Governor Mark Dayton: David Lillehaug and Wilhelmina Wright. Justice Alan Page was elected to office.

The Minnesota Republican Party endorsed Michelle L. MacDonald to run against Justice David Lillehaug.[7]

The Minnesota Democrats (known as the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party) did not endorse any supreme court candidates.[8]

Campaign finance

Emblem-money.png

Contributions

Total reported contributions received by candidates for the 2014 elections (does not include in-kind contributions):[9]

Seat 2:

Candidate Total contributions
Wilhelmina Wright $152,710.00
John Hancock$0.00

Seat 3:

Candidate Total contributions
Michelle L. MacDonald $933.00
David Lillehaug$111,809.00

Noteworthy events

The following articles were current as of the dates listed.

Minnesota GOP was unaware of supreme court endorsee's DWI arrest

See also: JP Election Brief: Retention tension, a supreme court candidate on trial, and an election decided by coin toss

June 19, 2014: Although Minnesota judicial candidates run in nonpartisan races, political parties can endorse them. In 2014, the Republican Party of Minnesota endorsed family law attorney Michelle L. MacDonald, who was running against incumbent Supreme Court Justice David Lillehaug. MacDonald was scheduled to stand trial on September 15 on charges stemming from a 2013 arrest for suspected DWI and resisting arrest. The trial was set to occur ahead of the November 4 general election, in which she and Lillehaug would appear on the statewide ballot.[10]

Party Chairman Keith Downey said the party was unaware of MacDonald’s arrest when it endorsed her, noting that her nomination by the Judicial Election Committee occurred "at the last minute."[10] Downey told the Star Tribune that he first learned about the arrest two weeks after the endorsement. He stated:

None of us, including the convention delegates, were aware of this information about the candidate. She, of course, is innocent until proven guilty, but at the same time, the delegates did not have the full disclosure they should have.[11]
—Keith Downey[10]

MacDonald said the committee was aware of her case and that she had received support after discussing the situation. She had no prior criminal record and maintained that she had not been drinking on the night of the arrest. According to the police report, she declined to take field sobriety and other alcohol tests.[10]

Court documents state that she was stopped for speeding in April 2013 and that the officer noted "a slight odor" of alcohol. MacDonald allegedly refused sobriety tests and told the officer she had not been drinking. She also identified herself as a "reserve cop" and a lawyer, and stated that she would walk home. The report further alleges that she physically resisted efforts to remove her from her vehicle.[10]

At the Rosemount police station, officers reported that MacDonald shook her head when asked if she understood Minnesota's "implied consent" law, which requires suspected intoxicated drivers to undergo testing. After she was given 34 minutes to contact an attorney without success, she declined to take a breath test and instead asked to speak with a judge.[10]

Because blood tests must be conducted within two hours of arrest under state law, she was also charged with third-degree test refusal. MacDonald later stated that she voluntarily took a blood test at a hospital the following morning and that the results showed no alcohol in her system.[10]

Her trial was scheduled to take place in Dakota County. MacDonald had previously filed three complaints against judges in the county and represented a client in a lawsuit against a judge. She said she believed the charges were retaliatory.[10]

She said:

When I was being interviewed [by committee members] they were saying this is a good thing because I’ve experienced what people are experiencing on a daily basis. I just never thought this would happen and I’m sucked into a system. Why am I even having to bother with a case where I’ve had zero alcohol, and why am I being asked to go to a trial where they cannot prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt?[11]
—Michelle MacDonald[10]

As of this reporting, the state GOP had not announced whether it would reconsider its endorsement of MacDonald.[10]

See also

External links

Footnotes