Eric Magnuson: 'Politics, judicial work don't mix'

Q A lot of people say Minnesota has good judges now, and "if it isn't broke, why fix it?"

A There's no perfect answer [for shielding judicial selection from special-interest and partisan politics]. But if you think there's not a problem, then you are sticking your head in the sand.

You just look at Wisconsin -- right next door, and awful. The last contested election for the state supreme court was everything that we've been saying could never happen here. Special-interest groups, attack ads, one-issue campaign themes, really, really brutal. It's what we want to avoid here.

Q What about the observation that very few Minnesota judges face election opponents?

A To that, I'd say that it only takes one big, nasty contested election, with all the attendant publicity, to damage public confidence in our system. That's the real problem. I'm not so worried about Judge A or Judge B keeping his or her job. You run on your record.

What I'm worried about is the public believing, as they believe in other states, that politics now influences outcomes.

Q With a politician, the governor, appointing judges before they stand for election, isn't politics already a factor in Minnesota courts?

A For five years, I chaired the governor's [merit-based] judicial-selection commission. I'm very proud of the record we have, both during my watch and before, through the last several governors. Capable people on the commission made good recommendations.

We have a very well-regarded judicial system in Minnesota. By and large, people perceive it as fair and open. We will lose that quickly if we start having even a couple of high-profile contested judicial elections. Politics and judicial work don't mix.

Q The Quie commission urges merit-based judicial reviews by two panels, the one Minnesota has now for selection and a second one for evaluation. Do you share the fear critics have expressed, that the evaluation would give a few examiners too much influence?

A I think [an evaluation] is a necessary part of the process. I would rather have the help of knowledgeable people evaluating the judges, and then, in a nonpartisan way, saying here's where they stand, than to have anybody walk into the voting booth with no idea what they're doing.

That's happening too often now. Sometimes even I can't tell you anything about Judge X or Judge Y. Voters have enough to learn about with candidates in other races that they could use the help.

Q What about giving the voters more information by letting judicial candidates actively campaign?

A The problem with that is the issues in legal decisions are often too complex to be susceptible of sound bites. Appellate judges write opinions after months of study, based on years of experience and hundreds of pages of briefs and thousands of pages of record. It's nonsensical to think you can boil down a decision to a sound bite that is meaningful to the public. You need to have a certain level of experience and insight and sophistication to be able to say that judge got that right.

Q Some judges oppose the Quie plan because they say it would make them vulnerable to a last-minute "Vote No" campaign. Do you agree?

A No. Those judges will have a big trump card in their pocket: an evaluation commission report that says this judge is qualified and is doing a good job.

Q Let's talk about the financial squeeze on the courts. You already sustained a cut in 2007, correct?

A It's more accurate to describe it as a shortfall. We know what we need to run the courts in a way that we think is optimal, and we are $19 million down from that. That means that, among other things, we'll have 7 percent less staffing than we'd planned for.

Q This doesn't mean fewer judges, correct?

A No, fewer support staff. Judges are mandated by legislation.

Q What will Minnesotans notice as a result of those cuts?

A We're trying to spread the consequences fairly across the system. We have fewer people to do the same or more work, which means everything will slow down.

Our business is, from an economic standpoint, countercyclical. When the economy gets stressed, people get stressed, and people under stress end up in court a lot more. Foreclosure action, debt collection, divorces -- our workload increases as the economy deteriorates. So not only are we operating with 7 percent fewer staff, we're handling more work.

Q Is slower service the only change?

A There's more. For example, we have to reduce, and perhaps eliminate, the per diem allowance that jurors get. It was $30 a day; now it's $20. We'll look at a way to compensate people for their out-of-pocket expenses, but we can't afford a per diem for everybody.

We'll reduce hours at some locations. That takes some pressure off the staff, but then you get a backlog. Backlogs are a lot like the 10 pounds you gain over Christmas. It's easier to not gain the weight than to pare it down once you've gained it.

Q Are there rural courthouses that are in jeopardy of losing their court operations?

A Yes, there are. I can't tell you specifically which ones.

Q How will you respond if the state's in deep deficit again in 2009, and there's a proposal to cut court budgets?

A The courts have been good citizens. We understand that we all need to play on the same team.

But courts perform a core function of state government. People need to have their criminal cases and civil disputes resolved. You just can't delay a lot of the things the courts do. We need to make sure the Legislature understands how important our function is as a branch of government.

I'm asking our partners in government [the legislative and executive branches] to come and sit at the table of collaboration with a fresh view. I'll ask for more stability in the funding. If we can make the case that we are as efficient and lean as we can be, and we are underfunded already, then we shouldn't be cut any more. We really need to have some of the cuts restored.