REP. NEWMAN SEEKS TO BECOME FIRST JUDGE ELECTED

"Campaign Races"

01/25/2006

Newman to retire from Minnesota Legislature following the conclusion of the 2006 session

ST. PAUL - Following a recent court ruling allowing judicial candidates to discuss controversial issues and seek a political party endorsement, State Representative Scott Newman (R-Hutchinson) is announcing he will retire from the Minnesota House of Representatives once the 2006 session ends in order to seek Republican endorsement as a judicial candidate in Minnesota’s 1st Judicial District. Newman said the decision leaves him navigating through uncharted water because in the past judicial candidates could not be endorsed.

“I have truly enjoyed serving as a state representative for the good people of McLeod and Meeker Counties,” Newman said. “But with my background as an attorney, I am excited about breaking new ground within the Minnesota judicial system. Never before has a judicial candidate been able to share their views. Finally, our citizens will have the opportunity to make a realistic assessment of who they want as a judge and have a meaningful judicial election.”

Newman, who is certified as a civil trial specialist by the Minnesota State Bar Association and the National Board of Trial Advocacy, is finishing his second term in the Minnesota House. He believes he is the first announced candidate that will utilize the July 2005 ruling in Republican Party of Minnesota vs. White by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. In that case the Court ruled that judicial candidates have a right to talk about disputed legal issues and be endorsed by political parties, and that the Minnesota Supreme Court Rules barring these practices were unconstitutional. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in the 8th Circuit case, paving the way for Newman to make his announcement.

“I have been following the 8th Circuit case closely for months and planning my judicial run accordingly,” Newman said. “The ruling means that judicial candidates can finally talk about the issues so voters can make informed decisions. Too many times, the judicial section of a ballot is left blank because the voter has no idea who the candidates are or what they stand for.”

The 1st Judicial District is compromised of Dakota, Goodhue, Scott, Carver, Le Sueur, Sibley, and McLeod counties. Newman said he is running for two reasons: his frustration with the previous manner of conducting judicial elections and his disappointment with several recent rulings in the Minnesota courts.

Judicial elections

As opposed to the Federal courts where the President nominates and the Senate confirms, the Minnesota Constitution requires that judges be elected. Newman said he has always taken issue with a clause concerning judicial vacancies, and feels the system is based too heavily on appointments rather than elections. Article VI, Section 8 of the Minnesota Constitution states that whenever there is a vacancy in the office of judge, “the Governor shall appoint until a successor is elected and qualified.”

Newman feels the appointment system has gone too far, and points to the state’s Commission on Judicial Selections as proof it is presupposed that judges will be appointed rather than elected as called for in our Constitution.

“It’s the only standing state committee in existence that I know of with the sole purpose of suggesting names of individuals to be appointed to an elected position,” Newman said. “Out of seven Supreme Court justices, only one was elected without first being appointed. Of the 16 Court of Appeals justices and 33 judges in the 1st Judicial District, all were appointed.

“It seems to me that an appointment should be a temporary measure until the voters decide who they want to be their next judge,” Newman continued. “How could the voters make that choice when the Minnesota Supreme Court wouldn’t allow a judicial debate?”

Before being struck down by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, Minnesota’s Supreme Court had rules in place prohibiting judicial candidates from discussing disputed legal issues, seeking the endorsement of a group or political party, or raising money. In addition, the current judge has “INCUMBENT” listed next to his or her name - another decided advantage for the appointed candidate.

“This not the system of judicial selection anticipated by our Constitution and virtually eliminates the voting public from the process.” Newman said.

Judicial activism

Newman said for the most part, judges do a good job. But there have been several rulings made recently that have prompted him to retire from the Minnesota Legislature to seek judicial office:

• Minnesota House of Representatives vs. Ingison. This case dealt with the state government shutdown in 2005, when the Minnesota Supreme Court allowed certain portions of government to remain open even though state funding had not been allocated to these areas. A Ramsey County judge found it was appropriate for the judicial branch of Minnesota to appropriate state funds for what it deemed were core state services. According to Newman, this ruling directly violates the Minnesota Constitution, which clearly states that only the legislature can make state appropriations.

• State of Minnesota vs. Jones. This case involved a Native American man who was convicted of a sexual assault, but refused to register as a sex-offender because he lived on a reservation. The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that convicted sexual predators do not have to report as sex-offenders if they are a resident of a tribal reservation. Newman feels it is ludicrous to allow any Minnesotan - regardless of ethnicity - to be able to ignore state sex-offender laws based on their residence.

• State Farm Insurance vs. Dougherty. This case involved a drunk driver who plowed her car into a snow bank. In her drunken state, she decided to stumble home in freezing conditions, fell asleep along the way and sustained frostbite injuries. She claimed “No-fault” insurance benefits from her automobile insurance company because she felt her injuries occurred from the use of her vehicle. The Minnesota Supreme Court found that the woman’s injuries were a natural consequence of her use of a car - not her drinking prior to the accident - and ruled that she was entitled to “no-fault” insurance benefits from her carrier. Newman thinks it is clear her injuries were the result of her intoxication, and that justices clearly ignored their duty in this case to interpret the plain meaning of the No Fault Statute and enforce the law as passed by elected officials. Instead, they forced a law into performing a task that expressed their personal opinion.

“I ran as a candidate for the Minnesota House because I was tired of the business-as-usual attitude at the State Capitol and I wanted to change it,” Newman said. “This is the same reason I am now trying to become a judge. I could sit back and complain about the way some things are being handled in the judicial system, or I can try to do something about it. My choice is to take action and try to bring the judicial branch of government out from under the cloak of secrecy. I want the spotlight to shine on this branch of government and citizens to begin to understand its function.”

Newman said he will decide in July which judicial seat he will run for, as the number of judicial vacancies remains unclear.