Court clears way for judicial races to turn political
01/24/2006
Candidates can now solicit contributions and accept party backing. Opponents may seek a constitutional amendment.
Eric Black, Star Tribune
Last update: January 23, 2006 – 11:35 PM
In what is either a blow for democracy or the death of judicial impartiality, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday put the final nail in Minnesota’s restrictions on partisan political activity by judicial candidates. The court refused to review a lower-court decision that threw out those restrictions.
In response, on Russell Anderson’s first day as chief justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, he pledged to lead an effort, possibly requiring a state constitutional amendment, to prevent big-buck, bare-knuckled, wedge-issue campaigning for judgeships. He said he recruited former Gov. Al Quie to lead a blue-ribbon panel on the issue.
“Minnesotans do not want judicial elections taken over by partisan politics and special interests seeking to influence judges’ decisions with huge campaign contributions,” Anderson said.
His predecessor, Kathleen Blatz, on her last day as chief justice, also expressed concern. “I’m worried that Minnesota’s judiciary may not be recognizable in 10 years,” she said.
Attorney Greg Wersal of Golden Valley, who started the revolution, said, “It sounds like the judges are all terrified. And maybe they should be.
“If we’re going to have judicial accountability, we need free and open elections,” Wersal said. “That’s what this decision will give us.”
The background
The Minnesota Constitution requires that judges be elected. But state judiciary has established ethical canons prohibiting judicial candidates from publicly taking positions on legal issues, directly soliciting campaign contributions, speaking at partisan political events, accepting the endorsement of parties and declaring party affiliations.
Wersal, who has twice run unsuccessfully for the Supreme Court, sued in 1998, alleging that these rules violated his free speech rights.
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that candidates must be allowed to state their views.
The other restrictions were ruled unconstitutional by the federal appeals courts. The state appealed.
Monday, the Supreme Court declined to review the case, which means the previous ruling stands and judicial candidates can be partisan as soon as this year’s elections.
The only restriction that remains is that party labels will not appear on the ballot.
The death of impartiality?
Blatz and Anderson said states that have partisan judicial elections—including Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Texas—end up with multimillion-dollar war chests for judicial candidates, attack ads that distort legal issues, special-interest groups trying to get elected candidates who will rule in their favor, litigants hiring partisan lawyers depending on the party of the judge assigned to the case and declining public respect for the impartiality of the judiciary.
Quie, who established a committee in 1979 to screen judicial candidates based on merit, has agreed to lead a panel that will seek public input, and eventually public support, for a change in the state Constitution aimed at preserving an impartial judiciary.
One approach, which Blatz favors, is a system used in some states in which judges are appointed by the governor, then appear on the ballot without an opponent. Voters decide whether the judge should be retained or replaced.
Although Blatz, Anderson and Quie all have Republican credentials, the Republican Party of Minnesota joined Wersal as a plaintiff in the case and declared victory Monday.
“Today is a great day for all Americans who value free speech and open elections,” Republican chairman Ron Carey said in a press release. “Like all Americans, judicial candidates should be allowed to participate in political party activities and seek contributions from their supporters. Minnesotans deserve the right to question those who seek elective office, including our judges.”