Minnesotans debate judicial elections

August 30, 2011

Shakopee, Minnesota: On August 25th, Scott County Republicans gathered in a Shakopee bar to debate the controversial subject of judicial elections. About 60 people attended the event. "We're trying to show that even within a party that disagrees, we can have a civil debate, have a good discussion, and get the information out to people," explained Chris Brovold, the House District 35B director of the Scott County Republicans.

Much of the disagreement centered around the question of judicial elections versus appointments and retention elections. Rep. Michael Beard of District 35A, with support from the Coalition for Impartial Justice, sponsored a bill last legislative session to switch to a retention system in which the Governor, Supreme Court, or other legal authority would make each initial judicial appointment, followed by retention elections that would be decided by voters. A number of states use this system, which Beard claims would prevent campaign money from influencing judicial elections. Supporters of the retention system pointed to the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election in which millions were spent on judicial campaigns by politically-motivated groups. However, opponents of the change countered that, in Minnesota, judicial campaign contributions cannot exceed $2,000 and must be anonymous. Along with the retention system, a bipartisan commission would be established that would evaluate the judges' performance for the voters because, as Ryan Kelly (campaign director for the Coalition for Impartial Justice) stated, "Folks have no information on how judges have performed." The judges in attendance agreed that the judicial selection system had problems, but opposed the retention system proposal.

The opposing side offered other alternatives. Attorney Greg Wersal argued that judges should not be listed as "Incumbent" on election ballots because it gives them an unfair advantage over their challengers. A former judicial candidate himself, he explained, “The ‘I’ cues them to vote for the incumbent. An attorney will run if they think they can win. Take the ‘I’ off and they will run." Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen, of District 25A, also argued for less drastic alternatives to the retention system. "Don’t give up your constitutional right to vote," he told the audience.

Although no consensus was reached among the party members, the discussion was a way to engage the public about the judicial selection issues that are expected to surface in the next legislative session.

See also

Judicial selection in Minnesota