lori031608

On the homepage

Vikings

Vikings respond to challenge

Out There

Artcetera

Biggest album release day of the year

Television

ABC gets complaints about Adam Lambert

Home | Opinion Exchange | Commentary

Lori Sturdevant: Judiciary could soon be dripping with politics

Warnings about big money infecting campaigns are going unheeded.

By LORI STURDEVANT, Star Tribune

Last update: March 15, 2008 - 4:43 PM

Knowing that lame ducks can be great talkers, I rang up Supreme Court Chief Justice Russell Anderson after his retirement announcement last week. Maybe he'd have words motivating enough to get a stalled judicial-selection reform bill moving at the Legislature.

On that subject, Anderson was more than happy to talk.

"A lot of people don't believe the excesses we've seen in judicial election campaigns in other states are coming here. Well, they're wrong," the chief said. He recited stats on the special-interest bucks that have been spent in other states to "buy the chair" -- $5.8 million in Wisconsin, $9 million in Illinois, $14 million in Alabama.

The canons that prevented that kind of politicking by judicial candidates in Minnesota were stricken by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. As a result, it's a new day for judicial politicking in this state.

"If big spending on judicial races doesn't come to Minnesota in this election cycle, it will soon. When it gets here, it's going to be very difficult to change," Anderson said. Judges who'd prefer not to associate with political parties or interest groups will feel compelled to do so, for self-protection. Groups that don't now put their brand on a judge will think they must, to safeguard their interests.

"When this comes, our very good state judicial system is going to be at risk."

Well said, Mr. Chief Justice. But the progress, or lack thereof, at the Legislature on the judicial selection changes Anderson says are needed goes to show that legislators -- and some judges -- are ordinary people after all. Like other mere mortals, they are not good at spotting and responding to a threat when it's still a ways from the gates.

They'd rather wait until it's in the parlor, then fume in futility about the mess it's making.

It's not that leaders like Anderson haven't been pointing at the threat, or proposing protective measures. Former Republican Gov. Al Quie, the father of the modern-era merit selection process governors use to screen judicial candidates, may have been the first to see it coming.

Quie put together a citizens commission that did yeoman's work, recommending a batch of changes that preserve the best of Minnesota traditions while minimizing the opportunity interest groups have to "buy the chair."

The ideas:

•Judges still would initially be appointed by the governor -- but the merit selection process governors since Quie have used voluntarily would become a permanent feature of the process.

•Judges still would stand for election periodically -- but the elections would be uncontested "retention" elections, yes or no on a judge's continuation, not an opportunity to install a challenger on the bench.

•An independent, bipartisan evaluation panel would be created to evaluate each judge's performance and inform the voters of their findings. (Understandably, the devil's in the composition details, in both the merit selection panel and the evaluation panel.)

These ideas have received numerous notable seals of approval, from the likes of former Vice President Walter Mondale, former Gov. Arne Carlson, the Civic Caucus and the League of Women Voters.

But they haven't been cheered by the state's district court judges, county attorneys, public employees unions or social-issue conservatives. It's obvious why some people on that list might not be terribly interested in an impartial judiciary. They rather like the idea of judges trying to keep their political friends satisfied.

But the district judges? Word around the Capitol is that some say the Quie proposals don't do enough to curb special-interest influence. Others worry that retention elections make them vulnerable to last-minute "ambush" attacks by powerful interest groups. When a challenger files against an incumbent in the current system, at least the judge is on notice in July that he's under fire, they say.

Hmm. It seems that tough campaign-finance reporting rules could mitigate those concerns. And that judges who are worrying about seeing the competition coming, so they can raise campaign money to counter it, are already thinking too much like politicians for Minnesota's good.

Lori Sturdevant is a Star Tribune editorial writer and columnist. She can be reached at lsturdevant@startribune.com.

Recent Commentary stories

Garrison Keillor: Let's leave Afghanistan before it's last call - March 15, 2008

Garrison Keillor: Let's leave Afghanistan before it's last call - We don't like quitting, but we also don't like overstaying our welcome. More

Comment on this story | Be the first to comment | Hide reader comments

New ideas for the public sector

THERE'S NEVER BEEN A BETTER TIME to create a more efficient Minnesota. Facing large budget deficits at the state, county and local levels, Minnesotans are seeing with new clarity that the public sector must adapt to new economic realities. Only the smartest, most strategic reinvention will ensure that our tax dollars are spent on the best programs and services. Read more

About Opinion Exchange

Opinion Exchange is produced by the Editorial Department, which is dedicated to hosting the discussion on a range of issues of interest to Star Tribune readers online and in print. In its new format, it's our hope that Opinion Exhange will create a more dynamic dialogue between Star Tribune readers and the Editorial Board. Many individual posts will be written and signed by members of the Editorial Board and will reflect their own opinions. Daily editorials will continue to represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and be researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom.

Subscribe to RSS|Learn more about RSS