Minnesota should change the way it chooses its judges, panel says
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
Under the current Minnesota system, any time a person runs for an open seat on the bench, he or she must run for public election. But open seat elections don't happen all that often because incumbent judges leave before their terms are over.
In those cases, the governor appoints the replacement. Then, the person must run to retain their judgeship in the next election.
The commission, known as the Citizens Commission for the Preservation of an Impartial Judiciary, has voted to change to the process. Whenever there's an open seat for any reason, a selection committee would submit several names to the governor. The governor then would have to appoint a successor from that list.
Instead of running in the next election, the newly appointed judge would serve four years. No longer would incumbent judges run against challengers.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
A second commission would evaluate that judge and declare publicly whether this judge is qualified or not qualified.
Minnesota Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson says the judge would then run for a "retention election run for election," where voters decide whether the judge keeps the seat.
"Under this proposal elections would continue, but it would be in a form where voters are being asked whether or not to retain the services of Judge X, rather than choosing between Judges W and Y," Anderson said.
If the person wins the election, he or she would serve an eight-year term. That is two years more than for current judges.
The commission headed by former Gov. Al Quie had considered abolishing public elections of judges altogether. Six members of the group supported a proposal for a straight appointive system where the governor or a commission would appoint judges. Quie said he just could not support such a system.
"I have confidence that when people get the facts and the information, that wisdom comes from the whole group. I've just been convinced of that," Quie said.
The commission will meet again in about a month to iron out the details of the proposal to send it to the Legislature.
Several members said it is unlikely that the Legislature will take the proposal up this session. If the Legislature approves the plan, the issue would go to the voters who would decide whether to amend the state Constitution.
