VOTERS REJECT PARTISAN ENDORSEMENTS FOR JUDGES

11/10/2006

Every candidate who accepted Republican endorsement lost at the polls

(ST. PAUL) 11/10/06 – The Republican Party’s attempt to politicize Minnesota’s judiciary went down to resounding defeat when every candidate who accepted the Republican endorsement lost at the polls. Minnesota voters rejected partisan endorsements for judicial candidates at every opportunity.

The Republican Party endorsed six candidates for judgeships in the 2006 cycle: Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, a former general counsel to the Republican Party, seeking another term on the Supreme Court; Court of Appeals judges Christopher Dietzen and Gordon Shumaker, each seeking another term on the Court of Appeals; District Court judge Mark Starr, seeking another term; and candidates Tim Tinglestad and Scott Newman, seeking election to the district-court bench. Only Tinglestad and Newman sought the endorsement; Justice G.B. Anderson and Judges Dietzen, Shumaker, and Starr rejected the endorsement. Tinglestad finished third in a three-way primary, and didn’t reach the general election; Newman did not face a primary, but lost in the general election to incumbent judge Michael Savre, who had asked that the Republican Party not endorse in his race.

Minnesota DFL Chair Brian Melendez released the following statement:

“Minnesota enjoys a long tradition of excellence in its judiciary. The state’s trial and appellate courts are staffed by talented judges—every one of whom was either appointed based on merit, or was elected without partisan politics. This system has worked under governors from three political parties. The process of choosing judges isn’t broken and injecting partisan politics into the mix risks upending the entire system.

“A fair judicial system that delivers justice for all must remain impartial, unbiased and nonpartisan. I denounce those opportunists who would taint the administration of justice with their own partisan agenda. Just because something is constitutionally permissible doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea. The voters have clearly told the parties that politics doesn’t belong in the courtroom and that they won’t start our state’s judicial elections on a race to the bottom from which we may never recover.”

Campaigns for judicial office have historically been nonpartisan. The Code of Judicial Conduct — rules that the Supreme Court of Minnesota promulgates for the conduct of judges and candidates for judicial office — provided that “a judge or a candidate for election to judicial office shall not . . . attend political gatherings; or seek, accept or use endorsements from a political organization.” But the Republican Party of Minnesota successfully challenged that prohibition, which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit struck down in 2005, ruling in Republican Party v. White that the prohibition unconstitutionally burdened judicial candidates’ free-speech rights. (Suzanne White, the named defendant, chaired the Board on Judicial Standards, the body charged with enforcing the prohibition.) The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in January 2006, letting the Eighth Circuit ruling stand. The 2006 election was the first in which a candidate for judicial office could seek, accept, or use a political party’s endorsement without violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The White ruling prompted various responses in the legal and political communities. The Minnesota State Bar Association opposed partisan endorsements in judicial elections, and asked that candidates voluntarily abide by the pre-White prohibitions. A group of political and business leaders from both parties formed the Minnesota Citizens Commission for the Preservation of an Impartial Judiciary. The Commission is chaired by former Republican Governor Al Quie, who introduced the merit-selection process for gubernatorial appointments to vacant judgeships, and includes Supreme Court justices G. Barry Anderson and Alan Page.

The Republican Party responded by amending its constitution to specifically provide for endorsing candidates for judicial office. The DFL Party could have endorsed judicial candidates without amending its rules, but instead opposed political-party involvement in judicial elections.