An all-star lineup -- a former GOP governor, a former DFL Senate majority leader, and the current and two former chief justices of the Minnesota Supreme Court -- gathered in a State Office Building hearing room last week for one purpose. They see a threat to something that's been enormously important in Minnesota's shared life, and they're trying to avert it.
The threat is electing judges in partisan political contests that mimic races for the Legislature, Congress or governor. Judges in other states run with party endorsement and with the rich financial backing of interest groups ranging from litigious corporations to adversaries in the hottest social disputes of the day. Judges arrive in office beholden to such groups, with their impartiality in doubt.
It hasn't happened here -- yet. But it will, these leaders warned. And when it does, it likely will be too late to undo the damage Minnesotans' respect for their courts and the law will sustain.
The message delivered by Chief Justices Eric Magnuson, Russell Anderson and Kathleen Blatz, former Gov. Al Quie and former Senate leader Roger Moe carried the day last week with a House panel. It voted 14-4 to advance a constitutional amendment designed to lessen the encroachment of partisans and special interests into the judiciary.
That amendment belongs on the November ballot this year. It ought not get lost in this session's budget-balancing grind. Former Chief Justice Blatz, herself a former GOP legislator and veteran of a state budget crisis as severe as the one lawmakers face this year, advised House members that despite budget woes, the amendment is "one of the most significant pieces of legislation you'll deal with this year."
The remedy the amendment affords does not deprive voters of a role in shaping the judiciary, its critics' contentions notwithstanding. Voters would still weigh in. But they would be asked whether or not a sitting judge, appointed by the governor, should retain his or her seat. They would not be able to elect a new judge outright.
Experience in other states has shown that special interests are much less inclined to pour money into a judicial race when only a judge's retention is at stake. It's the opportunity to replace a sitting judge with someone congenial to an interest group's point of view that attracts big spending.
The amendment would also create a nonpartisan process for public evaluation of a sitting judge's performance. That evaluation would be made available to voters, providing them with more information than they have now in most cases about how a judge functions on the bench.
