Minnesotans for Impartial Courts

Mitch Pearlstein, President of the Center of the American Experiment, and Dane Smith, President of Growth & Justice, joined together in a March 7, Star Tribune Op-Ed  supporting retention elections over judicial races.  These organizations, one conservative and one progressive, are members of the Coalition for Impartial Justice Minnesota. 

The Star Tribune Editorial:  In judicial reform:  a vote for retention  talks about the all-star lineup of GOP and DFL supporters at last week’s House State and Local Government Operations Committee hearing and the reasons to get the Judicial Retention Amendment on the 2010 ballot.

League of Women Voters MN Commentary:  Support for Judicial Election Reform

On Thursday, March 4, the State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology and Elections Committee voted 14 to 4 to pass House File 224 (Simon), the proposed constitutional amendment that would preserve the independence of Minnesota judges by creating a system of retention elections.

Committee members who voted to support H.F. 224 were Representatives Pelowski, Poppe, P. Anderson, Gottwalt, Hilty, Hornstein, Kahn, Kalin, Marquart, Nelson, Sanders, Simon, Sterner, and Winkler.  The bill was referred to the House Civil Justice Committee.  

What’s next?

• Hearing in the House Civil Justice Committee (date to be determined).
• Committee stops in Senate Rules and Administration and Senate Finance (dates to be determined).

 
What can you do? 

• Call  or email legislators who supported H.F. 224 in Government Operations and thank them for their vote.

House State/Local Government Operations Committee members 

• Call or email House committee members urging them to support H.F. 224: 

House Civil Justice Committee members 

• Call or email Senate committee members asking them to support S.F. 70: 

Senate Rules and Administration Committee Members 

Senate Finance Committee Members 

Find your legislator. 

Background:

The proposed constitutional amendment gives Minnesotans the chance to preserve the independence and impartiality of judges across the state.  The amendment would create a system in which citizens have the final say on whether a judge stays in office—while also providing voters with nonpartisan performance evaluations on each judge before Election Day.   

The Legislature decides whether Minnesota voters have the chance to change the state Constitution.  With the doors open for special-interest money in judicial elections, that means now is the time for lawmakers to act and put the amendment in the November 2010 ballot.

Dear Supporters of Minnesotans for Impartial Courts.

Please join us along with our Coalition for Impartial Justice partners in supporting legislation to establish a ballot initiative in November 2010 to improve our system for selecting and electing judges.

HF224, is being heard in the House State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology and Elections Committee this Thursday.   Here are the details:

8:30 a.m. Thursday, March 4

200 State Office Building

We can make a difference by attending the hearing and making calls to committee members 

Watch or read the  30 minute February 19 segment of Bill Moyers Journal documenting the concern that is growing nationally for keeping money and politics out of the judicial selection process.  Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

Sandra Day O’Connor addressed legislators Wednesday and urged an end to contested judicial elections to keep money and politics out of Minnesota’s courts.  The recent Supreme Court decision allowing corporate spending only serves to make the issue more urgent.  Read Lori Sturdevant’s February 10 article.

February 11 Pioneer Press lead editorial highlights issues and proposal to protect Minnesota’s Judiciary from threats of money and politics.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stopped in the Twin Cities Wednesday, February 10, to talk about the need to preserve an impartial judiciary. MinnPost, February 11.

From the New York Times, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said last week’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was likely to create “an increasing problem for maintaining an independent judiciary.”