Changing how Minnesota selects — and rejects — its judges got a thumbs-up from a blue-ribbon study group.
By Conrad Defiebre, Star Tribune
Minnesota’s judges would face up-or-down elections without opponents at least four years after their appointment by the governor under an overhaul of the state’s judicial selection system proposed by an influential but unofficial panel headed by former Gov. Al Quie.
Under the plan proposed Tuesday, all judicial appointees would be chosen from the nominees of a selection commission similar to one that operates now only for district judgeships.
And, once in office, judges would face further scrutiny from a new evaluation commission whose ratings of “qualified” or “not qualified” would accompany their names on the ballot when they faced voters in so-called retention elections for eight-year terms. Like the current selection commission, the “performance review commission” would be appointed by the governor and the Minnesota chief justice.
If a judge were rejected by the voters, the process would begin again with a new appointment by the governor. “This needs to be sold,” Quie said after the panel, made up of judges, lawyers and community leaders, wrapped up a year of study with a 17-6 vote in favor of the retention election system. “It’s going to be a tremendous effort.”
Amendment required
To take effect, the recommendations would have to be approved by the Legislature and then the voters in the form of an amendment to the state Constitution.
It could be an uphill battle to supersede a straightforward judicial election system that has been in place since Minnesota became a state in 1858. But that system has become a focus of controversy in recent years as the vast majority of judges are appointed to fill vacancies and then elected to six-year terms without opposition and with the designation “incumbent” on the ballot.
Critics of that custom won a U.S. Supreme Court ruling opening up judicial elections to outspoken debate, party endorsements and other trappings of political campaigns that previously were barred by state Supreme Court rules. That, in turn, raised concerns in legal quarters that the big money and unbridled partisanship seen in other states’ judicial elections could so degrade Minnesota’s that citizens lose confidence in their judiciary.
Those concerns led state Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson and Quie to organize the panel. Other leaders of the bench and bar as well as prominent political figures joined the effort.
Appointment still on table
Although the group showed strong support for judicial retention elections, it also narrowly defeated a rival proposal for a pure appointment system similar to that of the federal courts, whose judges never face election and may serve until they die.
With support from some Republicans, DFL state chair Brian Melendez had pushed for that option. After it failed 14-11, he vowed to file a minority report along with the commission’s recommendation that will go to legislators.
Whether either suggestion goes anywhere remains an open question. The panel’s work has already been criticized by some as an effort to avoid judicial accountability.
Meanwhile, most observers agree that none of the judicial-election excesses noted elsewhere have cropped up in three Minnesota elections since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
