Litigation

MN Editorial: Strong Support for Merit Selection

By Peter Hardin

Warning that “the writing is literally on the wall,” an editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune strongly supports a proposal to reform the way voters decide whether to retain a sitting judge.

The proposal effectively would write into law the kind of merit selection process that Minnesota governors have used for three decades, but that is at risk now:

“Powerful forces want to inject more electioneering into the choosing of Minnesota judges. Full-blown politicking by judicial candidates, complete with negative ads, campaign contributions, special-interest endorsements and political party backing, has been legally permissible for five years, thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

“As a result, blessings that Minnesotans have been able to take for granted for decades–the impartiality of their courts and merit-based screening of potential judicial appointees–are at risk.”

A proposed constitutional amendment would replace contested elections to decide on a sitting judge?s future with up-or-down retention elections. It also would set up a non-partisan commission to evaluate judges near the ends of their terms (see Gavel Grab).

In the state legislature, the amendment has faltered. Its backers fault the anti-abortion group, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, for the diminished support. The group’s activity and the interest of the Republican candidate to succeed Gov. Tim Pawlenty in more contested judicial elections “ought to galvanize support” for the amendment, the editorial states, prodding legislators to remember their duty:

“They are stewards of this state’s public assets–and fewer assets are more valuable than an impartial judiciary.”

A Justice at Stake issues page has more information about appointment and retention systems.

Full post as published by The Gavel on May 17, 2010 (boomark / email).