James H. Gilbert: Partisanship that hurts judicial process

06/21/2006

Party endorsement of Minnesota candidates for the bench wreaks havoc on the independence of the judiciary.

James H. Gilbert
Star Tribune
Published: June 21, 2006

The Republican Party of Minnesota continues to vigorously promote partisan politics in Minnesota’s judicial elections. The party recently endorsed one Minnesota Supreme Court justice and two Court of Appeals judges.
This new era of judicial elections may cause concern, but the legal and judicial community must show the greatest degree of respect for this new federal precedent and for Minnesota’s election laws.

The bar must not seek to “micromanage” challengers. Rather, we can positively join forces to help maintain judicial independence and the high quality of justice that we have earned over the decades—one case at a time. Minnesota’s good government standards will be maintained, and with the assistance of the legal profession, the citizens of Minnesota again will do what is best for the state.

There is partisan irony in the GOP’s recent activities. On the one hand, Republicans have spent the last five years promoting First Amendment rights of judicial candidates. However, at this month’s convention, the party would not even let a woman candidate appear at the convention to challenge Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s endorsement. This candidate, Sue Jeffers, is a successful business owner who has voted for Republican candidates and supported the party for 30 years. However, she happened to disagree with the governor on using taxes to fund sports stadiums. The party was not only timid but disrespectful of Jeffers’ First Amendment rights and they refused to even let her into the convention!

Then at this same convention the Republican Party endorsed three incumbent appellate judges who did not even seek the party’s endorsements. Associate Justice Barry Anderson further said that though they hoisted this endorsement upon him, he would not use it. Minnesota voters will also be able to pass final judgment on the Republican hypocrisy.

The chairman of the Republican Party’s Judicial Election Committee argued that the party’s endorsements are not for the candidates but to inform the electorate. This false premise does not fool anybody. In other states with partisan endorsements, such as Texas, Ohio and Illinois, candidates and special interest groups spend millions of dollars on judicial races. The judicial seats are the targets of political tug-of-war among the various special interest groups with partisan agendas.

The Republican endorsement of judicial candidates is not about providing more information to the public or fostering open and honest debate in judicial campaigns as their rhetoric claims. Rather, these partisan endorsements for judicial seats promote an extremist political agenda and inject partisanship into the judicial elections and decisionmaking process.

The recent turn of events has almost been exclusively motivated by the Republican Party’s fixation with social issues. This effort, by a very small group of extremists, has targeted judicial elections by affirmatively and proudly trying to interject politics into Minnesota’s judicial election process. In addition, self-promoters are seeking to improve their economic station in life and Democrats are also filing for judicial office.

Advancing political agendas into the judicial decisionmaking process distorts justice. It adds bias and prejudice that should be rejected by all Minnesotans. Our judges’ decisions on cases should be based upon the facts presented and an interpretation of the law applicable to those facts. In contrast, partisan political agendas bring disrespect to the judicial system. The independence of the judiciary demands that all political affiliations and activities be set aside when deciding cases. Furthermore, political attacks on the judiciary have not been well received in the past by Minnesota voters.

During my statewide election in 2000 as an associate justice, Greg Wersal sought and received the Republican Party endorsement and used that endorsement in his campaign against me. I campaigned on a nonpartisan platform stressing my experience and the importance of impartiality. I made more than 100 public appearances. Wersal campaigned full time from April 2000 to the general election in November. Hundreds of thousands of sample ballots with Wersal’s name and picture were sent out by the Republican Party, but to no avail. Minnesotans responded resoundingly: I received 69 percent of the vote. The Republican endorsement backfired on Wersal, as the citizens of Minnesota clearly rejected partisan judges!

It is time for Gov. Tim Pawlenty to speak about this important issue of judicial independence. The governor has been AWOL in this struggle. He is a trial lawyer who earned his living in the courtroom before he became governor, and First Lady Mary Pawlenty is a trial court judge in the First Judicial District.

The governor knows full well the importance of a nonpartisan, impartial judiciary even on the cases that he is now bringing before the court on behalf of the state. However, he has not exerted any leadership in this area. He has merely uttered a faint voice of protest and then lets events unfold.

Similarly, in 2000 he had offered to publicly endorse my candidacy and then at the last minute changed his mind. He stated that his endorsement might cause discomfort among his conservative political base.

The citizens of Minnesota have the final say when they vote for judicial candidates on Nov. 7, 2006. Lawyers can make a difference by helping to spread the word about the relationship between justice and judicial independence.

James H. Gilbert was appointed an associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court by Gov. Arne Carlson in 1997 and elected to a new term in 2000. He retired from the court in 2004 and works as an attorney in Eden Prairie.