Restoring Accountability

Retention Elections

Retention Elections (PDF)

Retention Elections: Restoring Accountability to Voters
Why does Minnesota need retention elections?
For the most part, Minnesota has been blessed with a long tradition of well-qualified, intelligent, and impartial judges.  However, as is the case in any industry, on occasion a judge may need to be removed for a variety of reasons.
Currently Minnesota has contested judicial elections, but over 90% of judges run unopposed.  This gives voters the opportunity to hold a judge accountable in only 10% of judicial elections.  Of the approximately 10% of incumbent judges that actually draw opponents, even fewer are actually defeated.  For example, in 2010, 110 judgeships were up for election.  Only 12 of those elections (11%) were contested.  In this election cycle, only 2 judges lost their seat, which is less than 2% of those up for election that year.
Under our present system, Minnesota voters have fundamentally lost their ability to hold judges accountable, essentially having contested elections in name only.
What are retention elections?
In a retention election, a judge does not have an opponent (as is the case in 90% of elections currently).  Rather, the voter chooses between retaining the incumbent judge for another term of office or voting the judge out of office.
If a majority vote “no,” then the judge loses their seat on the bench.
If a majority vote “yes,” the judge will retain their seat for another term.
How would retention elections assist voters at the ballot box?
Retention elections would give voters a choice in every election, restoring their right to hold judges accountable 100% of the time.
Do other states use a retention election system?
Yes.  Currently 20 states use judicial retention elections in some form.  Many of these states use retention elections for all levels of the court system, including Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wyoming.
Would retention elections apply to all Minnesota judges?
Yes.  Judges at all levels of the court system – district court, appellate court, and Supreme Court – would run for reelection using retention elections.
How would a vacancy be filled if a judge loses a retention election?
The vacancy would be filled via merit selection and the gubernatorial appointment process, which is a commonly used practice in Minnesota.  Under the present system of contested elections, 93% of judges are appointed.
How would a retention election look on the ballot?
The following is an example of how a retention election question would appear on the ballot:
“Shall each of the persons listed be retained in office as judge?”
“John Smith, Yes or No”
“Jane Doe, Yes or No”
What is the timeline for a judge under the Impartial Justice Act?
o A judge is appointed by the governor through a list of nominees presented by the Merit Selection Commission.
o The judge must stand for retention in the next regularly scheduled election cycle more than 1 year after appointment.
o If the judge is retained (i.e. receives more than a 50% “yes” vote), then the judge serves a complete term.
o Midway through the judge’s term, the judge is privately evaluated by the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission to improve or maintain their job performance.
o In the final year of the judge’s term, the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission conducts a full-scale public review of a judge and makes the results publicly available to the electorate.
o Finally, at the end of the judge’s term, the judge must stand for a retention election.

Retention Elections: Restoring Accountability to Voters

Why does Minnesota need retention elections?

For the most part, Minnesota has been blessed with a long tradition of well-qualified, intelligent, and impartial judges.  However, as is the case in any industry, on occasion a judge may need to be removed for a variety of reasons.

Currently Minnesota has contested judicial elections, but over 90% of judges run unopposed.  This gives voters the opportunity to hold a judge accountable in only 10% of judicial elections.  Of the approximately 10% of incumbent judges that actually draw opponents, even fewer are actually defeated.  For example, in 2010, 110 judgeships were up for election.  Only 12 of those elections (11%) were contested.  In this election cycle, only 2 judges lost their seat, which is less than 2% of those up for election that year.

Under our present system, Minnesota voters have fundamentally lost their ability to hold judges accountable, essentially having contested elections in name only.

What are retention elections?

In a retention election, a judge does not have an opponent (as is the case in 90% of elections currently).  Rather, the voter chooses between retaining the incumbent judge for another term of office or voting the judge out of office.

If a majority vote “no,” then the judge loses their seat on the bench.

If a majority vote “yes,” the judge will retain their seat for another term.

How would retention elections assist voters at the ballot box?

Retention elections would give voters a choice in every election, restoring their right to hold judges accountable 100% of the time.

Do other states use a retention election system?

Yes.  Currently 20 states use judicial retention elections in some form.  Many of these states use retention elections for all levels of the court system, including Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wyoming.

Would retention elections apply to all Minnesota judges?

Yes.  Judges at all levels of the court system – district court, appellate court, and Supreme Court – would run for reelection using retention elections.

How would a vacancy be filled if a judge loses a retention election?

The vacancy would be filled via merit selection and the gubernatorial appointment process, which is a commonly used practice in Minnesota.  Under the present system of contested elections, 93% of judges are appointed.

How would a retention election look on the ballot?

The following is an example of how a retention election question would appear on the ballot:

“Shall each of the persons listed be retained in office as judge?”

“John Smith, Yes or No”

“Jane Doe, Yes or No”

What is the timeline for a judge under the Impartial Justice Act?

o A judge is appointed by the governor through a list of nominees presented by the Merit Selection Commission.

o The judge must stand for retention in the next regularly scheduled election cycle more than 1 year after appointment.

o If the judge is retained (i.e. receives more than a 50% “yes” vote), then the judge serves a complete term.

o Midway through the judge’s term, the judge is privately evaluated by the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission to improve or maintain their job performance.

o In the final year of the judge’s term, the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission conducts a full-scale public review of a judge and makes the results publicly available to the electorate.

o Finally, at the end of the judge’s term, the judge must stand for a retention election.