Shakopee Valley News editorial, March 27
A proposed constitutional amendment that would change for the better the way judges are selected in Minnesota appears dead this legislative session. But that does not diminish its importance and the need for the question to go before Minnesota voters soon.
A group called Minnesotans for Impartial Courts, headed by former Republican Gov. Al Quie and Supreme Court Justice Alan Page proposed the change because of what they say are emerging threats to the fairness and impartiality of the courts. Quie started a merit-selection process for judges when he became governor in 1979.
Under the group’s proposal, judges would appointed by the governor from nominees forwarded by a judicial commission, which would nominate the most qualified candidates.
Another commission would evaluate their performances. Voters would later make regular decisions at the polls over whether to retain the judges.The plan has a large number of distinguished supporters, including former Republican Gov. Arne Carlson, former Minnesota Chief Justice A.M. (Sandy) Keith, retiring Minnesota Chief Justice Russell Anderson, former Republican U.S. Sen. Dave Durenberger, former Congressman Bill Frenzel and former Republican legislators such as George Pillsbury, Ed Oliver, Wayne Popham and Sheila Kiscaden, and former Minnesota Republican Party Chair Chuck Slocum.
So important is this amendment to Anderson that he spoke at legislative hearings about it last month and during his recent retirement address.
Anderson and others are very concerned — as are we — that this state’s judicial-selection process is heading down the path to unrestrained and undignified politicking and fund-raising. What has prompted the concern is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that scrapped Minnesota's rules barring judicial candidates from voicing views about political or legal matters. The high court’s decision allows for political party endorsements and discussions of how a candidate might feel about potential court cases.
Anyone who gets fed up by the never-ending political commercials on TV should imagine those same kinds of no-holds-barred commercials about judicial candidates taking a stand on the issues of the day. In other states where this kind of politicking is allowed, high-powered and well-financed groups — many from out of state — bombard the airwaves with oftentimes outrageous commercials and claims. You know — like political ads.
What Anderson, Quie and many others are concerned about is judicial candidates’ making promises about how he or she would rule on a matter before the court.
Anderson said “the notion of a judge going out and making promises about how he will decide cases is repugnant to me. How would you like to walk into a courtroom and have to worry about the promises that a judge made?”
Anderson pointed out that judges face complicated decisions and unusual circumstances on a regular basis. The written law cannot account for each circumstance that comes before a judge.
“The laws they enact are in many ways words in a book until given meaning in the lives of people through the courts system,” said Anderson. “It is just so important that a judge be fair and impartial.”
The group’s plan will keep the judicial-selection process dignified and allow for the best candidates to be appointed and allow the public to decide whether he or she should retain the judicial seat.