Maintaining Judicial Independence in Minnesota

Letter to the Editor sent to the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Villager April 8, 2008

The League of Women Voters of Minnesota agrees with Senator Ortman ("Defending Right to Elect Judges," March 27, 2008) that the people of Minnesota should have the power to elect our state's judges. We also agree that the Constitution should not be amended casually.

However, unlike Senator Ortman, the League of Women Voters believes that the proposed Constitutional amendment regarding judicial selection is necessary, even critical, if we are to maintain judicial independence in Minnesota. We support amending the Constitution to provide a merit selection/retention election system. According to this system qualified judges would be named in the first place; they would be subject to regular performance evaluation; and voters would have good information when they went to the polls. Unlike Senator Ortman we believe that retention elections are real elections: they allow voters to make the final decision as to whether the judge remains in office or not.

Why is this amendment necessary? It is necessary because in 2002 a U.S. Supreme Court decision opened up judicial elections to politics. This has created a real threat to judicial independence--the right we all have as citizens to appear before an impartial judge. Once Minnesota judicial elections are awash in money, driven by special interests, riddled with television ads, and defined by party affiliation, what assurance will we have that the judge we face in the courtroom is looking at our case objectively, that we will in fact have a fair trial?

The trends are clear. Across the nation judicial contests are becoming highly costly (over $9 million for one Illinois Supreme Court seat in 2004, over $7 million for an open Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin in 2007). They are also negative: Wisconsin Public Radio says that the "Wisconsin Supreme Court races have come to resemble boxing matches in recent years. That's because special interest groups have been delivering blow after blow with negative campaign ads."

The League of Women Voters supports a Constitutional amendment that includes:

Initial appointment to judgeship by the governor, who must choose from among a list of qualified candidates forwarded by a nominating commission.

Rationale: assures that new judges will be highly qualified. This kind of system has been in place in Minnesota since 1979; as a result, Minnesota's judiciary is considered among the very top in the nation for competence and independence. Assures a role for the public on the commission; commission should be broadly based and nonpartisan.

End-of-term evaluation of the judge's performance by an evaluation commission, results to be made available to the public.

Rationale: provides voters with good information when they vote for judges; assures a role for the public both in submitting information to the commission and in serving on the commission; the commission should be broadly based and nonpartisan.

Retention election: voters choose to retain or not retain the judge.

Rationale: gives the voting public the final word as to whether a judge should or should not be kept in office. The history of the merit selection/retention system has shown itself best at keeping politics and money out of elections. For those groups wishing to oust a judge there is a major disincentive: they cannot choose the judge's replacement.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2002 decision radically changed judicial elections in this country. The League of Women Voters believes that the threat to judicial independence in Minnesota is now so great as to warrant changing our Constitution. There is no perfect way to select a judge, but the merit selection/retention election system is by far the best option for the citizens of Minnesota.

Helen Palmer
Past President, League of Women Voters of Minnesota

Maintaining Judicial Independence in Minnesota

Other Public Statements: